Zionist. Political commentator. Security expert and a Middle East Researcher.
USA
Joined May 2023
- Tweets31.2K
- Following1.1K
- Followers10.8K
- Likes60K
Pinned Tweet
For years, people mocked anyone who warned about Islamist long-term strategies. Now it’s unfolding in plain sight. The Muslim Brotherhood and its allies don’t rely on one tactic - they use immigration jihad, money jihad, political jihad, birth jihad, and of course violent jihad. Each one chips away at Western resilience in different ways, all serving the same ideological goal: the spread of Islamist rule. To them there is "Dar Al-Islam" ("the house of Islam"), and "Dar Al-Harb" (the house of war) - the latter to be made house of Islam through war.
Dismissing “jihad” as merely “spiritual struggle” is like pretending Mein Kampf ("My struggle" in German) was just a self-help book. Imagine falling for that twice. The ideology is openly stated - you just have to take it seriously.
Israel is living the front line of what Europe is sleepwalking into. Islamists can’t tolerate non-Muslim sovereignty, especially on lands they once colonized. That’s why Israel (like Spain) is a particular obsession: Judaism and Christianity re-emerged there, defying Islamist supremacy. A strong Israel is literally blasphemy, and Spain is so confused it's joining it's own enemy against those who fight it.
Qatar bankrolls and platforms this machine - funding the Muslim Brotherhood, buying influence in universities and media, weaponizing Al-Jazeera as a propaganda arm. Meanwhile, waves of unvetted, military-aged men enter Europe; mosques become hubs for radical preaching; birthrates shift demographics; and short-sighted leaders keep feeding the crocodile, hoping to be eaten last, and emboldening the same terrorists - that start riots and "intifada" in the west - driving away the Jews - and showing their weakness to the predators, awaiting to feast.
Europe is approaching a breaking point. Islamist movements are patient, organized, and ideological. Western elites are distracted, divided, and afraid of being called names, and woke demoralization campaigns make sure it's stays that way. If Europe wants to survive as a free civilization, it has to wake up - before it's too late, stand with Israel, and stop mistaking appeasement for virtue.
xitter.cf/destinationXIX/status/…
The Muslim Brotherhood’s War on the West Is Real - and It's Working
This isn’t paranoia. It’s a documented strategy - already underway.
The Muslim Brotherhood, the ideological engine behind Hamas and most Sunni Islamist movements, has a 100-year plan to conquer the West - not through bombs, but through institutions, infiltration, and subversion.
Their model? Indonesia.
Once a Hindu-Buddhist society, it gradually fell to Islam without war, through mass migration, slow cultural domination, and the systematic erosion of native identity.
That’s the Brotherhood’s blueprint for Europe and North America.
We know this because they told us.
In the 2008 Holy Land Foundation Trial - the largest terror-financing case in U.S. history - prosecutors exposed a secret Muslim Brotherhood document called "An Explanatory Memorandum".
It stated, in plain Arabic, their goal:
“To destroy Western civilization from within... and sabotage its miserable house... so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious.”
They weren’t vague. They listed their tools:
CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations)
ISNA (Islamic Society of North America)
ICNA (Islamic Circle of North America)
Muslim Students Association (MSA)
All still active. All still funded.
And they infiltrated the U.S. government too.
Obama’s administration welcomed figures with deep Brotherhood ties - like Dalia Mogahed and Rashad Hussain - as advisers on Muslim outreach.
They shaped narratives, softened the West’s stance on Islamism, and helped redefine criticism of political Islam as “Islamophobia.”
In France, Macron suddenly recognized a Palestinian state - days later, Qatar wired billions in investment into the French economy.
Coincidence? Or a deal?
Meanwhile, Qatar owns more of London than King Charles does.
Luxury properties, financial firms, even iconic buildings - all controlled by a regime that funds the Brotherhood and shelters Hamas leaders in five-star hotels.
Their mission:
Import large numbers of Muslims into the West, even illegally
Use identity politics to silence dissent
Ban criticism of Islam under “hate speech” laws
Demoralize the population through crime, riots, and cultural guilt
Destroy national unity using Soviet-style psychological operations (exactly what the KGB did during the Cold War)
This isn’t immigration. It’s infiltration.
And yet, the Brotherhood is still legal in the U.S., UK, and EU.
Why?
Because the elites they bought are too compromised, too cowardly, or too blind to act.
This is not about Islam.
It’s about radical Islamism - a political ideology cloaked in religion.
Even Muslim-majority countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE have banned the Muslim Brotherhood and declared it a terror group.
They know how dangerous it is - so why doesn’t the West?
The Muslim Brotherhood must be banned.
Its institutions dismantled. Its networks exposed.
Not tomorrow. Now.
Because if we wait — our children will be strangers in their own homelands.
Britain’s strategy toward Israel is worse than virtue signalling. It is undermining its own stated objectives - even where those objectives differ from Britain’s national interest. London claims to be helping Palestinians and advancing peace, yet keeps surrendering the influence needed to do either, while putting British security and economic interests at risk.
Start with recognizing Palestine. The announcement did not create a functioning state, deliver democratic government or secure the hostages’ release - that wasn't even negotiated. Britain recognized Palestine while Hamas still held hostages and Palestinian institutional reforms remained promises. The diplomatic gesture was real. The promised transformation on the ground was not delivered by it.
Recognition was something Palestinian leaders wanted. That made it leverage.
Recognition could have been part of a coordinated bargain for the hostages, backed by pressure on Hamas and the governments with influence over it. Success was never guaranteed. But Britain surrendered that particular bargaining chip without securing their release.
Britain could have also tied it to verifiable reforms serving Palestinians: elections, accountable government, the effective abolition of payments rewarding terrorism, and removing incitement and the glorification of violence from classrooms. London acknowledged commitments on elections, prisoner payments and curriculum reform before recognition. It accepted promises where it could have demanded results. That was a missed opportunity to help Palestinians hold their own leadership accountable.
All this was supposedly done to save the “two-state solution”. Yet that formula has lost credibility among the people expected to live with its consequences. In Pew’s 2026 survey, only 17% of Israelis believed Israel and a Palestinian state could coexist peacefully, after October 7th. Fifty-six percent believed they could not. Among Palestinians surveyed in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, just 21% believed peaceful coexistence was possible, while 68% did not.
Another declaration from London cannot repair that collapse of trust.
And there is a fundamental contradiction Britain prefers to leave unaddressed, at best. If Palestinian statehood in Gaza and the West Bank is combined with an unrestricted “right of return” into Israel sufficient to eliminate its Jewish majority, the destination is effectively two Palestinian-majority states. A negotiated refugee settlement could avoid that outcome. An unlimited demand cannot simply be hidden behind the reassuring phrase “two states”. Two states for two peoples requires accepting Jewish national self-determination too. Only a small fraction of Palestinians support that.
Then consider military education. Britain suspended future Israeli participation in its military training and education courses, including the Royal College of Defense Studies. The government simultaneously explained that these courses emphasize compliance with international humanitarian law. If Britain believes Israeli officers need to learn British standards, excluding them from the institutions teaching those standards is a peculiar remedy. It also didn't apply these standards to Chinese and Qatari personal - actual violators of international humanitarian law, and not a fake one: Discussing the 2014 Gaza conflict, British Colonel Richard Kemp described Israeli efforts to protect civilians as “unprecedented in any other army”. After visiting in 2024, General Sir John McColl wrote: “The procedures are at least as rigorous as those applied in the UK armed forces”. Perhaps even more.
Asked why Chinese and Qatari personnel were not similarly banned, the government offered a case-by-case explanation about partnerships, risks and benefits. Apparently engagement can have strategic value with those countries, while exclusion is the preferred instrument for a democratic ally.
Next came restrictions targeting Israeli settlements. Britain’s businesses now face potential exposure to American anti-boycott rules, including restrictions on government contracts and public investment in Florida and Texas. Going against British national interest.
The retaliation was considerably more concrete than the diplomatic gains. Israel ordered the closure of Britain’s East Jerusalem consulate. The eventual agreement preserved a much smaller mission: Britain’s presence serving Palestinians was sharply reduced. Israel also announced Britain’s exclusion from the US-led Gaza coordination mission. A policy advertised as helping Palestinians reduced Britain’s capacity to work on their behalf.
Palestinian workers face another potential cost. Businesses targeted because they operate in settlements also employ Palestinians. Palestinian statistics put average daily wages in Israel and settlements at approximately 3 times more that in the West Bank’s private sector. If export restrictions cause employers to cut production or close, Palestinian families lose livelihoods too. Calling a measure pro-Palestinian does not protect their paychecks. Calling it anti-Israeli seems more fitting.
The diplomatic priorities are equally revealing. During September’s sanctions dispute, Pat McFadden acknowledged that Andy Burnham had not yet spoken to Netanyahu. Later that month, Ed Miliband met and shook hands with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi at the UN, while the Jewish Chronicle reported that he met no Israeli official during that visit. Talking to adversaries might be necessary. Failing to engage an ally while trying to change its behavior is harder to explain.
The Iranian meeting took place three days before the RAF Fairford plot. Netanyahu subsequently said Israel had warned Britain about an Iranian-sponsored threat beforehand. The strategic question is hence unavoidable: why treat a country supplying potentially life-saving intelligence as a relationship Britain can casually degrade?
Israel still has choices. Intelligence cooperation with MI6 and other British agencies is a relationship to maintain, not an entitlement. Reduced collaboration would mean fewer warnings, less visibility and greater risk for Islamist terror attacks on British soil. British security should not become collateral damage in a contest to display disapproval.
Nor should Britain overlook the economic opportunity. Dealroom’s 2025 analysis identified more than 180 international billion-dollar companies with offices in Tel Aviv, and a startup-to-unicorn conversion rate far above the wider region’s. This is a substantial partner in technology, investment and innovation. A foreign policy built around the Israel portrayed in protest slogans cannot adequately account for the Israel British businesses and security services actually work with.
Recognition spent before reforms were delivered. Military exchanges suspended. Diplomatic access reduced. Businesses exposed to competing restrictions. Palestinian livelihoods potentially damaged. A valuable security relationship placed under strain. Britain played most of it's cards.
But where is the corresponding achievement?
Britain is entitled to criticize Israeli policy. Its government is responsible for making that criticism serve a practical purpose. Sacrificing influence, commercial opportunity and security cooperation for domestic political applause and without even the guarantee of electoral reward - is a remarkable way to confuse moral performance with national interest.
Something fascinating is happening in British politics.
And Labour is making a fundamental strategic mistake.
For decades, British Muslims were among Labour’s most reliable voting blocs. In 2019, the British Election Study put Muslim support for Labour at 79%.
By 2024, it had collapsed to 36%.
But where did those voters go?
Increasingly, they began electing their own local and community representatives - particularly candidates campaigning explicitly around Gaza and Muslim concerns.
Look at the 2024 election.
In the 21 constituencies where Muslims were more than 30% of the population, Labour’s average vote fell from 65% to 36%.
Blackburn.
Dewsbury and Batley.
Birmingham Perry Barr.
Leicester South.
All were taken from Labour by independents.
In Leicester South, Shockat Adam defeated Labour’s Jonathan Ashworth after campaigning heavily on Gaza.
This wasn’t statistical noise. Academic analysis describes a clear electoral shift away from habitual Labour voting toward Greens and, most dramatically, explicitly pro-Palestinian independents.
Labour panicked.
It saw a constituency it had taken for granted breaking away and, rather than reconsidering the wisdom of communal politics, tried to win it back by moving increasingly toward the political demands of the activists competing for those voters.
And Israel became the currency.
Britain recognised Palestine.
It sanctioned Israeli ministers and settlers.
It restricted arms-export licences.
And now Labour has gone substantially further: Britain is moving to ban trade in goods from Israeli settlements as part of a new international sanctions initiative.
There is even a revealing parallel elsewhere in Labour policy.
Documents disclosed under Freedom of Information legislation recently showed that the government approached Britain’s equality watchdog about adopting its controversial definition of anti-Muslim hostility despite the EHRC’s objections. Former EHRC chair Baroness Falkner explicitly accused Labour of pursuing the definition to win Muslim votes.
But here’s the irony:
It will not work.
Labour seems to assume that if it moves far enough on Israel, Muslim voters who abandoned it will return.
They won't.
The electoral evidence suggests something much more consequential is happening.
Those voters have discovered that they don’t need Labour anymore.
Why vote Labour and pressure Labour politicians to represent your priorities when you can elect a politician who campaigns on those priorities directly?
And it creates a potentially disastrous equation for Labour:
It can keep moving against Israel, absorbing the diplomatic, economic, legal and political consequences - while still losing the voters it is trying to recover.
Israel has already retaliated against Britain’s latest measures, including announcing the closure of the British consulate in East Jerusalem.
And Labour should not assume there is no domestic electoral price on the other side.
But there is a much bigger lesson here - one that goes far beyond Israel.
This is what short-term politics looks like when politicians think in election cycles but demographic and cultural changes last for generations.
Britain accepted very high levels of immigration while its political establishment largely assumed that integration into the existing party system would continue. Labour in particular became accustomed to overwhelming support from many immigrant and minority communities.
But people are not permanent possessions of political parties.
As communities become larger and geographically concentrated, they acquire the numbers to organize independently - and increasingly they can elect candidates specifically representing the issues most important to those communities.
Gaza demonstrated the consequences.
An academic study of the 2024 election describes the emergence of The Muslim Vote, which explicitly sought to mobilise Muslim voters in constituencies with significant Muslim populations and direct them toward candidates capable of defeating Labour MPs over Gaza.
That should be an extraordinary warning about the development of sectarian voting blocs and the fragmentation of British politics.
Foreign affairs thousands of miles away can become decisive issues in British constituencies.
Political loyalty can increasingly organize around religion, ethnicity or events in ancestral homelands rather than the traditional left-right arguments of British politics.
And concentrated populations make that political power considerably greater under Britain’s constituency system. Researchers examining the 2024 result specifically note that geographic concentration amplifies these electoral effects.
This is all about the extraordinary shortsightedness of the political class that helped create the conditions for increasingly communal politics and apparently never considered what would happen when those communities stopped voting the way established parties expected.
Labor learned the wrong lesson and is trying to retrieve those votes by going against national interest.
Foreign policy should be based on Britain’s national interests and consistently applied law - not an escalating auction for communal votes.
Labour may discover that it sacrificed one constituency in an attempt to appease another, only to lose both - and the country - in the process.
Why doesn't Israel allow the Red Cross to visit the October 7 Nukhba terrorists?
The question is usually presented as yet another example of Israel violating international humanitarian law.
There's just one problem: international law does not automatically grant every terrorist detained during an armed conflict an unconditional right to Red Cross visits.
International humanitarian law distinguishes between different categories of detainees. These distinctions are not optional.
The Third Geneva Convention, particularly Article 126, guarantees ICRC access to prisoners of war.
But POW status is not automatically conferred on everyone who participates in hostilities.
Under Article 4, members of irregular armed groups must satisfy specific conditions, including responsible command, distinguishing themselves from civilians, carrying arms openly, and conducting operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Hamas's October 7 attackers deliberately massacred civilians, kidnapped women and children, and committed grave violations of the laws of war.
They cannot simply demand the privileges of lawful combatants while rejecting the obligations.
The Fourth Geneva Convention separately guarantees ICRC visitation rights for qualifying protected civilians under Article 143. Whether particular detainees fall within that Convention depends on their legal status and the applicable conflict classification.
In non-international armed conflicts, Common Article 3 requires humane treatment but does not itself establish an unconditional right to ICRC visits.
The ICRC may offer its services. Israel is not automatically required to grant access under Common Article 3 alone.
Now compare this with the Israelis abducted on October 7.
These were civilians kidnapped from their homes, a music festival, and their communities, alongside soldiers captured during the attacks.
They were not criminal suspects lawfully detained by a government.
They were hostages.
Hostage-taking is expressly prohibited by international humanitarian law. Hamas was obligated to release them, treat them humanely, and provide necessary medical care.
The applicable legal framework also protects communication with families and, for qualifying protected persons and prisoners of war, humanitarian visitation.
Yet throughout their captivity, Hamas denied the ICRC access to the Israeli hostages.
Not a single independent monitoring visit.
No confidential interviews.
No verification of their detention conditions.
No reliable system for delivering medication supplied by desperate families and confirming that it reached the people who needed it.
Hamas bears direct responsibility for that refusal, but after more than two years, the ICRC's requests had produced precisely zero monitoring visits, and the ICRC isn't innocent by any means.
Consider Elma Avraham.
She was 84 years old when Hamas kidnapped her.
Her daughter, Tal Amano, repeatedly approached the Red Cross with medication her mother desperately needed.
According to the family, the organization refused even to accept it.
Elma was eventually released in critical condition after 51 days in captivity.
And here comes the inversion.
The international campaign demanded Red Cross access to the perpetrators of October 7 while the victims were denied even the most elementary humanitarian protections.
The hostages were held illegally. Their captors refused independent oversight. Yet the outrage was repeatedly redirected toward Israel's rightful detention of the attackers.
This is a recurring feature of the Free Palestine movement's rhetoric: reverse the roles of perpetrator and victim, then invoke humanitarian law falsely and selectively.
But the ICRC's own behavior makes the situation considerably worse.
Because while the organization was allegedly "powerless" to visit Jewish hostages, deliver their medication, or verify whether they were alive, it was remarkably available when Hamas needed participants for its propaganda spectacles.
On January 25, 2025, a Red Cross representative sat beside a masked Hamas terrorist, signing theatrical hostage-release certificates.
Behind them, a sign proclaimed in Hebrew: "Zionism will not prevail".
Hamas cameras recorded the occasion.
The hostages were paraded before crowds, surrounded by armed terrorists, and made to participate in a carefully staged performance.
On February 8, three severely emaciated hostages - Ohad Ben Ami, Eli Sharabi, and Or Levy - were forced onto another Hamas propaganda stage.
After prolonged captivity, starvation, and abuse, they were publicly displayed before armed terrorists and cameras.
And there stood ICRC representatives.
One was filmed shaking hands with a Hamas operative while another masked terrorist photographed the encounter.
A humanitarian representative exchanging pleasantries with a member of the organization responsible for the captivity and humiliation of the people he was supposedly there to protect.
The Red Cross couldn't reach these men for more than a year.
But reaching Hamas's propaganda stage was apparently considerably easier.
Then came February 20.
Hamas displayed the coffins of four murdered Israeli hostages, including baby coffins for the Bibas children and their mother, in another grotesque spectacle.
And once again, a Red Cross representative appeared onstage beside a masked Hamas terrorist.
After the ICRC had already been criticized for participating in these ceremonies, it had publicly called for private, dignified handovers.
Yet its representatives continued appearing at the events.
Hamas also forced hostages to participate in political propaganda, including wearing Palestinian symbols and posing for staged photographs - another violation of international humanitarian law.
International humanitarian law prohibits humiliating and degrading treatment. Coercing hostages into propaganda performances, displaying them before hostile crowds, and forcing them to participate in political theater are violations of that principle.
The ICRC itself acknowledges that the release ceremonies were inappropriate.
But statements are one thing. Actions are another.
The organization insists that it had no control over Hamas's arrangements and that its priority was safely transferring the hostages.
That transfer was important.
But there is a difference between retrieving captives from terrorists and allowing your humanitarian emblem to become a recurring feature of their propaganda productions.
The organization that couldn't obtain access to the hostages to provide a sign of life and lifesaving medications became a public participant in their final humiliation.
And this isn't the first time the Red Cross has been used to legitimize the abuse of Jews.
In June 1944, ICRC delegate Maurice Rossel visited Theresienstadt, the Nazi ghetto and concentration camp.
Before the visit, the Nazis beautified the camp, concealed its horrors, and deported thousands of Jews to Auschwitz to reduce overcrowding.
Rossel toured the carefully prepared facilities and produced a favorable report.
His assessment of the camp's medical facilities included this extraordinary statement:
"There are only few places where the population enjoys a medical care comparable to Theresienstadt".
Read that again.
A Red Cross representative described medical care in a Nazi concentration camp as comparable to the best available elsewhere.
The visiting delegate reported what the Nazis wanted him to see.
The ICRC has since acknowledged its failures during the Holocaust.
But the historical parallel is impossible to ignore.
In 1944, the Red Cross failed catastrophically to protect Jews in Nazi concentration camps.
In 2025, the Red Cross failed to secure access to Jews kidnapped and tortured by Hamas.
And in both cases, the humanitarian organization's presence lent credibility to grotesque atrocities.
But there is another aspect of the ICRC's relationship with Palestinian prisoners that deserves serious scrutiny.
The Palestinian Authority's notorious *pay-for-slay program*.
For years, the PA paid salaries to Palestinians imprisoned for terror attacks against Israelis and provided benefits to families of those killed during attacks.
Under the longstanding system, payments increased with the length of imprisonment, as established through Palestinian legislation and administrative decisions.
Because more serious terrorist attacks generally result in longer sentences, perpetrators of mass murder could qualify for substantially higher payments.
The PA allocated approximately $350 million annually to its prisoner and martyr-family payment programs in 2018 - roughly *1.3 billion Israeli shekels*, or around 7% of its operating budget.
According to Israeli government assessments, between 2018 and 2023 alone, payments totaled approximately 3.72 billion shekels - more than $1 billion.
And that doesn't include the preceding decades or establish the total subsequently paid.
The ICRC issues certificates confirming detention used for applications for prisoner-related benefits.
An organization entrusted with confidential detention information must ensure that its documentation and procedures are not exploited by systems that financially reward violence and terrorism.
Despite claiming to reform the program, Mahmoud Abbas reportedly reassured Palestinians that prisoners and families of those killed would continue receiving benefits, as described in 2026 federal court proceedings.
And in May 2025, a Palestinian prisoners' affairs official reportedly confirmed that lists of eligible prisoners continued to be submitted for payment.
And what did some Western governments do?
They recognized Palestinian statehood without securing the elimination of the payment incentives, an end to terrorist indoctrination, or the institutional reforms necessary for genuine peaceful coexistence.
Recognition could have been leverage.
Instead, it was granted without obtaining those fundamental changes, securing the release of the hostages still in Gaza, or even securing ICRC visits.
And then the same international political establishment lectures Israel about humanitarian obligations toward the terrorists who committed October 7.
There is no automatic humanitarian visitation obligation under Common Article 3 alone. Even where Article 143 of the Fourth Geneva Convention applies, it allows exceptional, temporary restrictions on visits for reasons of imperative military necessity.
Such restrictions must meet that strict legal standard; allegations concerning prisoner-payment documentation do not automatically establish an exemption.
The Red Cross should be held to the standards it claims to uphold.
And those standards are particularly important when the organization has a documented history of catastrophic failures involving Jewish captives.
The ICRC describes itself as:
"an impartial, neutral and independent organization whose exclusively humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of armed conflict and other situations of violence and to provide them with assistance".
A noble mission.
But the true measure of humanitarian neutrality is not how beautifully an organization describes its principles.
It is whether those principles survive contact with the people it finds politically inconvenient to protect.
From Theresienstadt to the tunnels of Gaza, the Red Cross has repeatedly confronted the same fundamental test.
Does its promise to protect humanity actually include the Jews?
If that's what humanitarian neutrality looks like, the Red Cross has a credibility crisis it can no longer explain away.
The Red Cross did nothing for the hostages, then sat on stage as part of Hamas propaganda movies, and get this - then condemned *Israel* for taking pictures of the released prisoners in exchange for those hostages.
Is the Red Cross just deflecting the fact that one of the returned hostages was held in front of the Red Cross building in Gaza, or is this you just being your regular antisemitic selves?
Those who accuse Jews of Jewish Supremacy - don't understand what being the "chosen people" means, or just projecting their own supremacy on the Jews...
Some people maliciously quote the Torah to claim Judaism is “just as bad” as Islam - pointing to ancient verses as if they’re the same as violent Quranic commands. But an anecdotal similarity doesn’t make two religions alike. It’s the same false “radicals on both sides” argument: in one faith, violence is fringe, outcast, and long abandoned; in the other, it’s mainstream, celebrated, and enforced. The big picture is entirely different.
Judaism doesn’t seek converts - quite the opposite. The process is deliberately hard, with no command to force anyone to join. Islam, in its traditional jurisprudence, has mandated conversion, submission as a dhimmi (second-class, taxed, with reduced rights), or death for those who refuse.
Jews see themselves as the “chosen people,” but that’s no privilege - it’s a heavy burden of laws and moral obligations. Classical Islamic doctrine, by contrast, promotes Muslim supremacy over non-Muslims, enforced through law and custom.
Judaism evolves. Ancient commands from a tribal world - like killing enemy nations or marrying young - are long gone. Islam, however, holds Muhammad as al-Ma‘ṣūm (infallible), meaning everything he did - breaking treaties, beheading captives, marrying a six-year-old - remains acceptable to Islamists today.
The Jewish homeland is a small strip of land Jews have lived in for millennia, and modern Israel is willing to share it with peaceful minorities. Islam’s expansion began in the Arabian Peninsula and swept across much of the world under the doctrine of Dar al-Islam (land of Islam) vs. Dar al-Harb (land of war to be conquered).
The results speak for themselves: Bethlehem’s Christian population thrived under Israeli control and collapsed under Arab Muslim rule - an almost complete purge. Hamas, born from the Muslim Brotherhood, embodies the Islamist vision: endless war, no coexistence.
This isn’t about all Muslims - the UAE shows there is another way - but Islamist supremacism must be named and stopped. Because history is clear: when supremacists aren’t stopped, they don’t stop - until they’ve taken everything.
France is burning its own history. And the people holding the matches call themselves progressives.
On October 17, 2026, rioters set fire to the historic City Hall of Limoges, France. The building, inaugurated in 1883, was modeled after the Hôtel de Ville in Paris. For 143 years, it stood as a monument to French civic pride, republican government, and the architectural achievements of the Third Republic.
It survived two world wars. It did not survive the radicals who claim to be fighting for a better future.
Its roof burned. Its historic belfry collapsed. Generations of French history disappeared in a single night.
And for what?
We are told these are “student protests,” driven by overcrowded classrooms, declining educational standards, rising living costs, and environmental policies.
Students certainly have reasons to be angry.
Their educational institutions are failing them. Academic standards are declining. Instead of teaching young people to understand their civilization, too many institutions teach them to regard its history primarily as a catalogue of oppression, its achievements as something to apologize for, and its national identity as an obstacle to multiculturalism.
But look at what happened when the demonstrations turned violent.
Businesses were attacked. Shops were looted. Police officers were assaulted. Public buildings were burned.
Ultra-left and Islamist militants exploited legitimate grievances to wage their familiar war against capitalism, private property, and the institutions of Western society.
And the destruction of Limoges City Hall offers a particularly revealing symbol.
The building was not a multinational corporation. It wasn’t a billionaire’s mansion. It wasn’t responsible for overcrowded classrooms.
It belonged to the French people.
This is how demoralization works.
During the Cold War, Soviet intelligence and propaganda operations sought to undermine confidence in Western institutions, amplify social divisions, and exploit existing grievances.
The objective was not only to convince everyone to become a communist. It was to weaken the legitimacy of competing political and economic systems.
A society that no longer believes its institutions deserve defending becomes vulnerable to those determined to replace them.
That is why culture matters. History matters. National identity matters.
You cannot preserve a civilization while teaching successive generations that everything it created was fundamentally shameful.
And this is where the modern red-green alliance becomes relevant.
Revolutionary Marxists and political Islamists have profoundly different visions of their ideal society. One promises liberation through class struggle; the other, in its Islamist form, demands political submission to religious authority.
Yet they can cooperate against a common enemy: the liberal, capitalist, secular West.
The alliance is not imaginary. Revolutionary leftist movements and Islamist organizations have repeatedly found common ground in anti-Western activism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Israel mobilization, and it worked in 1979 with the Iranian Islamic revolution- damning generations of people to oppressive and misogynistic Islamic rule.
“Free Palestine” has become one of the most effective banners under which these otherwise incompatible movements organize.
Follow the money, too.
China has invested heavily in influence operations aimed at shaping foreign political discourse. Qatar has directed billions into Western educational institutions and cultivated substantial political and media influence. Iran has operated covert propaganda networks, including fabricated online personas and coordinated messaging. Russia has a documented history of exploiting Western polarization.
China and Russia seek strategic advantage and weaker Western competitors. Iran’s revolutionary regime seeks regional power and the expansion of its ideological influence. Qatar pursues influence through diplomacy, media, education, and relationships with Islamist movements.
But their interests converge when Western societies turn against their own institutions.
And the destruction is not limited to cultural monuments.
Across Europe, historic Christian institutions have faced repeated vandalism, desecration, theft, and arson.
France alone recorded 843 anti-Christian incidents in 2025, including 627 incidents targeting places of worship. In 2024, authorities recorded 50 church-related arsons or attempted arsons, compared with 38 the previous year. Thousands of churches burned to the ground and the damage to Europe’s religious and cultural heritage is undeniable.
Churches are not merely religious buildings. They are repositories of European architecture, art, music, collective memory, and centuries of history.
Destroying them impoverishes everyone, including those who have never entered a church to pray.
We saw a similar pattern during the 2020 BLM unrest.
Legitimate outrage over alleged police misconduct became an opportunity for radical factions to promote revolutionary politics, attack businesses, and destroy public property.
The underlying grievance was somewhat real. The exploitation was real, too.
Similar ideological battles have surrounded gender identity and transgender-rights activism, where disagreements over specific policies have been transformed into sweeping demands to dismantle established institutions and norms.
The recurring mechanism is the same: identify a genuine social grievance, attach a maximalist ideological program, and portray resistance as moral illegitimacy.
The result is a society increasingly incapable of distinguishing reform from destruction.
And when governments and media reduce violent unrest to complaints about schools, prices, or environmental policy, they are overlooking the extremists exploiting those complaints.
The grievances might explain why some people assembled.
They do not excuse why mobs burned a 143-year-old monument.
Europe needs to recover something it has spent decades teaching itself to distrust: the conviction that its civilization is worth preserving.
That means enforcing immigration laws, screening for security threats and extremist affiliations, insisting on integration into the constitutional order, and refusing to tolerate imported sectarian conflicts or revolutionary violence.
It means defending freedom of speech without accepting intimidation, defending the right to protest without tolerating arson, and prosecuting political violence regardless of who commits it.
Above all, it means abandoning the idea that protecting Western culture is inherently shameful.
A civilization is not preserved automatically.
Its institutions survive because people maintain them. Its monuments survive because people protect them. Its values survive because each generation believes they are worth passing on.
On October 17, the people of Limoges lost a building that had stood since 1883.
Without society’s willingness to defend its own inheritance - this is just another milestone in its demise.
If Europeans no longer believe their civilization deserves to survive, they should not assume that those who despise it will preserve it for them.
Europe keeps looking back at the ruins of World War II and asking what went wrong.
Too often, the answer it gives itself is: nationalism.
But that may be the wrong diagnosis.
Nazi Germany was not the expression of a confident nation proudly building its culture and offering something great to the world. It was the psychology of a defeated, humiliated society trying to crawl back into a mythologized past. It was not forward-looking patriotism. It was resentment disguised as pride. It was the insecurity of a bully, not the strength of a civilization.
And that matters, because civilizations do not collapse because they love themselves too much. They collapse when they stop believing they can build anything new.
That is when scapegoating begins. That is when Jews are blamed. That is when yesterday becomes sacred, tomorrow becomes frightening, and politics becomes an exercise in revenge.
You see the same sickness in Western communists trying to revive a corpse that already left mountains of bodies behind it. They are not imagining the future. They are trying to re-enter a failed past, pretending history never happened.
And this is where the new authoritarian instinct in the West increasingly comes from the left. Not always with uniforms or flags, but with moral absolutism, compelled speech, institutional cowardice and the permanent hunt for contamination. Different costumes, same impulse: purification, conformity, dehumanization, punishment.
It also explains why Israel becomes the perfect screen for projection. They take everything they fear about nationalism - conquest, supremacy, militarism, ethnic obsession, mythic grievance - and project it onto the Jewish state.
But Israel is not trying to conquer the world. It is not trying to export a racial ideology. It is not asking Europe or the Middle East to become Jewish. It is not demanding that other civilizations erase themselves. It is a small, besieged, argumentative democracy trying to survive in a region that has repeatedly tried to destroy it, and blame it for being the aggressor for surviving.
That is not fascism - that is a people refusing to die.
You see the same phenomenon in Islamist movements too. The question begins as: “How did the Islamic Ottoman glory fall?” But the answers diverge. Atatürk moved forward, broke the spell, and built modern Turkey (before Erdogan). The UAE is doing something similar today: taking a proud culture and aiming it at the future. But when Islamists tried to return to “original Islam”, they did not produce greatness. They produced Hamas, ISIS, Hezbollah, the Taliban - movements that keep societies poor, paranoid, violent and trapped.
So perhaps the obsession with Zionism is not really about Zionism at all.
Perhaps Zionism enrages so many people because it is the thing they failed to become: an ancient people that did not retreat into nostalgia, but turned memory into construction. Language into infrastructure. Trauma into children. History into a state. Grief into software, farms, universities, music, medicine, soldiers, jokes, arguments, families and life.
Israel is not perfect. No living nation is. But it is alive in a way many exhausted societies no longer are. It remains one of the happiest countries in the world, ranking eighth in the 2026 World Happiness Report despite actively fighting a war on 7 fronts for over 2 years now, and Israel’s fertility rate remains the highest in the OECD and the only western country with above replacement level. 
That is what real national confidence looks like. Not hatred of others. Not imperial nostalgia. Not racial fantasy. Not revolutionary cosplay. But a people saying: we have something distinct, something beautiful, something ours - and we intend to build with it, and share it with others.
And that is not uniquely Jewish.
Spain can do it with its warmth, family life, architecture, music, faith, food and stubborn joy. Britain can do it with its language, liberties and dark humour. France can do it with cuisine, beauty and civilizational elegance. Greece, India, Japan, Poland, Armenia, the Gulf states - every civilization has a choice.
You can turn your inheritance into a museum of grievance.
Or you can turn it into a launchpad.
The great lie of post-war Europe was that love of one’s nation leads inevitably to fascism. The truth is almost the opposite: healthy nations do not need fascism. Confident cultures do not need scapegoats. Forward-looking people do not need to burn the world to feel alive.
The danger is not national pride, the danger is the lack of it.
Golda Meir once said:
“We have a secret weapon in our struggle with the Arabs; we have no place to go”.
Few sentences explain the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict better.
In 1948, when Israel declared independence, neighboring Arab armies invaded. Arab leaders had rejected partition, and some openly threatened the destruction of the emerging Jewish state.
The expectation was that the Jews would collapse.
After all, who were they?
Holocaust survivors, refugees from Arab persecution, immigrants with few possessions, rebuilding a nation after centuries of exile. Many had escaped societies where Jews had historically lived under discriminatory restrictions, including the dhimmi system.
The prevailing contempt for Jewish military capability was about to meet reality.
The Arab armies lost.
And the defeat was so humiliating that Syrian intellectual Constantin Zureiq gave it a name in his 1948 book: The Meaning of the Disaster - al-Nakba.
The later elevation of the Nakba into the central framework for understanding 1948 is not merely a neutral description of Palestinian suffering. It is part of a revisionist project that shifts historical attention away from the attempted destruction of the Jewish state and toward a narrative in which Palestinian victimhood becomes the primary moral and political fact. That framing often treats the consequences of the Arab rejection of partition and invasion as though they were the original cause of the conflict, while minimizing the existential threat faced by Jews who had survived genocide, persecution, and expulsion.
But in realtime, this was about multiple Arab armies who had failed to defeat a state that had barely been born.
Rather than reconsider the premise that Jewish sovereignty must be eliminated, the region’s revolutionary leaders increasingly embraced another strategy.
If Israel could not be destroyed immediately, perhaps it could be exhausted.
Gamal Abdel Nasser built his political project around pan-Arab nationalism, confrontation with Israel, and promises of eventual victory. His catastrophic defeat in 1967 did not end the confrontation. Egypt subsequently launched the War of Attrition.
The underlying calculation was straightforward: Israel was small, surrounded, and dependent on maintaining a functioning society. Its enemies could impose a permanent military and economic burden until the Jewish state became unsustainable.
But something was missing from that calculation.
The Jews had nowhere to go.
The Six-Day War also accelerated an ideological transformation.
Israel, previously portrayed as an artificial and vulnerable state of refugees, was increasingly recast as a powerful Western colonial project.
The Palestinian national movement drew on the Algerian revolutionary model: portray the conflict as indigenous liberation against foreign settlers, sustain armed resistance, and eventually force the colonizer to withdraw.
It was a compelling narrative for international audiences, particularly amid the global wave of decolonization.
But it contained a fundamental contradiction.
The French could leave Algeria and return to France.
Where, exactly, were the Jews supposed to return?
Poland? Germany? Iraq? Yemen? The countries that had murdered, persecuted, or expelled them?
Israel was not a distant imperial possession administered from a European capital. It was the restored national home of a people with an ancient connection to the land, reinforced by generations of refugees who had no other national refuge.
That distinction matters enormously.
A colonial power can calculate that maintaining a colony costs more than abandoning it.
A nation fighting for its survival cannot make the same calculation.
And yet, for decades, Israel’s enemies continued to confuse its attachment to life with an inability to endure suffering.
Hamas turned that misconception into an explicit ideological weapon.
Its leaders repeatedly celebrated martyrdom and contrasted their willingness to sacrifice lives with Israel’s determination to preserve them.
Israel mourned its dead. Hamas glorified death in its propaganda, and intentionally caused civilian deaths for propaganda wins.
Israel negotiated agonizing exchanges to recover its hostages. Hamas exploited those hostages as instruments of psychological warfare.
Israel’s concern for human life was interpreted as a strategic vulnerability.
October 7, 2023, was the culmination of that calculation.
Hamas breached Israel’s defenses, massacred civilians, abducted families, and demonstrated what its vision of destroying Israel meant in practice.
The attack was not simply a protest against borders or settlements. Its victims included peace activists, children, elderly people, and foreign workers.
The brutality was the message.
And Hamas apparently believed the shock would expose Israel’s fragility.
Instead, it exposed something else.
The Jews still had nowhere to go.
For three years, Israelis have endured enormous military, economic, and psychological costs. Reservists left their families and businesses. Communities buried their children. Hostage families fought to bring their loved ones home.
The country has experienced bitter internal disagreements, political failures, and extraordinary grief.
But the fundamental commitment to national survival has not disappeared.
That is the mistake repeated by generations of Israel’s enemies.
They assume that because Jews value life, they will eventually surrender to those who threaten it.
They confuse reluctance to fight with an inability to fight.
History suggests otherwise.
In 1973, Egypt’s Anwar Sadat launched another war against Israel. Four years later, he stood before the Israeli Knesset in Jerusalem. In 1979, Egypt became the first Arab country to sign a peace treaty with Israel.
Not because Jews had finally abandoned their homeland, but because Egypt’s leadership recognized that permanent confrontation was not a viable path to its objectives.
Decades later, the Abraham Accords demonstrated another possibility.
The UAE and Bahrain chose normalization rather than waiting for Israel’s disappearance.
The lesson is that peace requires accepting only one fundamental reality:
Israel is not going anywhere.
And this is where the next phase of the conflict must begin.
The objective cannot simply be to win another war, only to prepare for the next one.
It must be to dismantle the political and educational structures that perpetuate the expectation of Israel’s eventual destruction.
That means fundamentally reforming the Palestinian institutions that have failed to produce accountable governance, ending incitement and the glorification of terrorism, replacing dysfunctional refugee policies with realistic paths to citizenship and dignity, and developing credible alternatives to Hamas rule.
It also means expanding the model of regional cooperation demonstrated by the Emirates: economic integration, shared security interests, and the recognition that prosperity offers more than permanent confrontation.
UNRWA’s uniquely inherited refugee-registration framework must be shut down, as well as its education to terrorism and Martyrdom.
The Palestinian Authority’s corruption and failures, and continues terror support and violation of the Oslo accords must be used as basis to dismantle it, and replace it with local authorities' governance, based on Dr. Mordechai Kedar’s emirates plan.
And Arab governments have a decisive role to play in ending the political fantasy that Jewish sovereignty is temporary.
They have to become stakeholders in Israel’s continued existence.
Because the strategic calculation that has sustained this conflict for generations is fundamentally flawed.
Jews do not want a forever war.
They have never needed to love death to demonstrate their willingness to defend life.
And when the alternative is national annihilation, they have repeatedly shown that they can endure extraordinary costs.
The sooner the region accepts that, the sooner it can stop preparing for Israel’s destruction and start building a future alongside it.
Europe keeps looking back at the ruins of World War II and asking what went wrong.
Too often, the answer it gives itself is: nationalism.
But that may be the wrong diagnosis.
Nazi Germany was not the expression of a confident nation proudly building its culture and offering something great to the world. It was the psychology of a defeated, humiliated society trying to crawl back into a mythologized past. It was not forward-looking patriotism. It was resentment disguised as pride. It was the insecurity of a bully, not the strength of a civilization.
And that matters, because civilizations do not collapse because they love themselves too much. They collapse when they stop believing they can build anything new.
That is when scapegoating begins. That is when Jews are blamed. That is when yesterday becomes sacred, tomorrow becomes frightening, and politics becomes an exercise in revenge.
You see the same sickness in Western communists trying to revive a corpse that already left mountains of bodies behind it. They are not imagining the future. They are trying to re-enter a failed past, pretending history never happened.
And this is where the new authoritarian instinct in the West increasingly comes from the left. Not always with uniforms or flags, but with moral absolutism, compelled speech, institutional cowardice and the permanent hunt for contamination. Different costumes, same impulse: purification, conformity, dehumanization, punishment.
It also explains why Israel becomes the perfect screen for projection. They take everything they fear about nationalism - conquest, supremacy, militarism, ethnic obsession, mythic grievance - and project it onto the Jewish state.
But Israel is not trying to conquer the world. It is not trying to export a racial ideology. It is not asking Europe or the Middle East to become Jewish. It is not demanding that other civilizations erase themselves. It is a small, besieged, argumentative democracy trying to survive in a region that has repeatedly tried to destroy it, and blame it for being the aggressor for surviving.
That is not fascism - that is a people refusing to die.
You see the same phenomenon in Islamist movements too. The question begins as: “How did the Islamic Ottoman glory fall?” But the answers diverge. Atatürk moved forward, broke the spell, and built modern Turkey (before Erdogan). The UAE is doing something similar today: taking a proud culture and aiming it at the future. But when Islamists tried to return to “original Islam”, they did not produce greatness. They produced Hamas, ISIS, Hezbollah, the Taliban - movements that keep societies poor, paranoid, violent and trapped.
So perhaps the obsession with Zionism is not really about Zionism at all.
Perhaps Zionism enrages so many people because it is the thing they failed to become: an ancient people that did not retreat into nostalgia, but turned memory into construction. Language into infrastructure. Trauma into children. History into a state. Grief into software, farms, universities, music, medicine, soldiers, jokes, arguments, families and life.
Israel is not perfect. No living nation is. But it is alive in a way many exhausted societies no longer are. It remains one of the happiest countries in the world, ranking eighth in the 2026 World Happiness Report despite actively fighting a war on 7 fronts for over 2 years now, and Israel’s fertility rate remains the highest in the OECD and the only western country with above replacement level. 
That is what real national confidence looks like. Not hatred of others. Not imperial nostalgia. Not racial fantasy. Not revolutionary cosplay. But a people saying: we have something distinct, something beautiful, something ours - and we intend to build with it, and share it with others.
And that is not uniquely Jewish.
Spain can do it with its warmth, family life, architecture, music, faith, food and stubborn joy. Britain can do it with its language, liberties and dark humour. France can do it with cuisine, beauty and civilizational elegance. Greece, India, Japan, Poland, Armenia, the Gulf states - every civilization has a choice.
You can turn your inheritance into a museum of grievance.
Or you can turn it into a launchpad.
The great lie of post-war Europe was that love of one’s nation leads inevitably to fascism. The truth is almost the opposite: healthy nations do not need fascism. Confident cultures do not need scapegoats. Forward-looking people do not need to burn the world to feel alive.
The danger is not national pride, the danger is the lack of it.
There is an uncomfortable lesson Europe needs to learn from Singapore, the UAE, and the world’s most dysfunctional countries:
Civilization is not maintained by empathy. It is maintained by the rule of law - and by the credible consequences of breaking it.
Consider Singapore.
A multiethnic, multireligious society that transformed itself from a relatively poor trading port into one of the safest and wealthiest countries in the world.
Drug trafficking can carry the death penalty. Serious crimes face severe punishment. Corruption is aggressively prosecuted. Public order is not treated as an optional cultural preference.
Now consider the UAE.
A country where expatriates constitute the overwhelming majority of the population, originating from different cultures, religions, and socioeconomic backgrounds.
Yet Dubai and Abu Dhabi are among the world’s safest major cities.
The UAE has severe penalties for terrorism, drug trafficking, and violent crime. Foreign residents convicted of crimes may face deportation.
These countries demonstrate that diversity does not have to mean disorder.
But they also demonstrate that a functioning multicultural society requires something more fundamental than tolerance: a common legal authority that nobody is permitted to challenge.
Now compare them with Sudan, Yemen, or parts of Syria.
These countries do not lack harsh punishments. They lack effective institutions capable of enforcing the law impartially.
Where the state cannot protect individuals, people seek protection elsewhere, and this is where the distinction between Western dignity cultures and traditional honor cultures becomes important.
In a high-trust society, disputes are resolved through evidence, contracts, courts, and impartial justice.
In an honor culture, reputation and loyalty often play a greater role. An insult may require retaliation because failing to respond signals weakness. Protection depends upon demonstrating that harming your group carries consequences.
And tribalism is often a rational response to institutional failure.
If you cannot trust the police to protect your brother, you protect him yourself.
If you cannot trust the courts, you turn to your clan.
If you cannot trust the state to punish violence, you establish your own deterrence.
This is precisely why effective policing matters.
Now look at Europe’s no-go zones.
The phenomenon is real: neighborhoods where organized criminals intimidate residents, witnesses refuse to cooperate, emergency services face attacks, and police require extraordinary measures to operate safely.
Sweden has officially identified vulnerable areas, including particularly vulnerable areas where criminal networks exert substantial influence.
France and the Uk have experienced recurring episodes of violent unrest, attacks on police, and organized criminal activity in certain neighborhoods, and of course - the on going "school" riots taking place all over France.
The problem is that when the state retreats, somebody else fills the vacuum.
Criminal gangs. Clan networks. Religious extremists. Local strongmen.
And once these organizations establish authority, restoring the state’s monopoly on legitimate force becomes extraordinarily difficult.
Europe has spent decades assuming that tolerance would automatically produce integration.
But integration requires more than physical residence.
It requires accepting that loyalty to the law supersedes loyalty to family, clan, religion, or political faction when those loyalties conflict.
There cannot be one standard of justice for the majority and another for politically sensitive minorities.
There cannot be neighborhoods where intimidation is tolerated because enforcing the law might provoke unrest.
There cannot be informal systems of coercion that deny women, dissidents, or vulnerable residents the protection of civil law.
And there cannot be a police force so afraid of accusations of discrimination that it hesitates to investigate serious crimes.
The irony is that the people most harmed by weak policing are often the law-abiding residents of precisely those communities.
Women who cannot safely report abuse.
Families threatened by gangs.
Witnesses afraid to testify.
Immigrants who came seeking the protection of a functioning state, only to discover that the intimidation they escaped has followed them.
This is where the Western obsession with suicidal empathy becomes dangerous.
Compassion for offenders cannot come at the expense of protection for victims.
A government that repeatedly fails to incapacitate dangerous criminals is not being humane - It is transferring the cost of its moral self-image onto innocent people.
And the damage goes far beyond crime.
When citizens see selective enforcement, they begin to question whether the rules are real.
When they believe that political identity determines prosecution, they stop trusting the courts.
When they believe that reporting a crime will accomplish nothing, they stop cooperating with police.
When they believe the state cannot protect them, they turn toward private protection.
The result is a vicious cycle.
Weak enforcement destroys trust. Low trust reduces cooperation. Reduced cooperation makes enforcement harder. Criminal organizations grow stronger. And society becomes increasingly tribal.
Eventually, even people who previously trusted the state begin behaving as though they live in a society without one.
This is how a high-trust society can deteriorate.
It is also why the answer cannot simply be harsher punishment.
Sudan has brutality without security.
Yemen has armed groups without reliable justice.
What distinguishes Singapore is not merely the severity of its laws. It is the state’s capacity to enforce them through functioning institutions.
Torture, arbitrary punishment, and collective guilt do not establish the rule of law. They destroy it.
What works is credible deterrence: a high probability of detection, effective investigation, swift prosecution, protection for witnesses, and predictable consequences.
Europe needs to stop confusing these things with authoritarianism.
The police must be able to enter every neighborhood.
The courts must apply the same standards to every defendant.
Terrorist organizations and criminal networks must not be permitted to establish competing systems of authority.
And governments must stop treating the enforcement of ordinary laws as an act of cultural aggression.
France, in particular, needs to respond to riots with greater firmness and consistency. Rioters who attack police, destroy property, intimidate residents, or endanger emergency services should face swift investigation, prosecution, and proportionate consequences under the law. The same principle applies to countries where unrest, intimidation, or extremist mobilization connected to events in France spills across borders: governments must protect their communities, enforce public-order laws, and prevent imported violence from becoming normalized.
The same principle applies in California, where debates over repeat offenders, retail theft, drug markets, and public disorder have exposed deep questions about enforcement and accountability.
The precise crime trends differ by location and offense. But the institutional principle does not.
A society cannot maintain public safety if its residents lose confidence that laws will be enforced.
Western civilization spent centuries building institutions that allowed people to trust strangers rather than depend exclusively upon their own families or tribes.
The state must earn the trust that makes peaceful cooperation possible.
A liberal society cannot survive without the willingness to defend the institutions that make liberalism possible.
A police force that cannot enforce the law is not compassionate.
A government that tolerates competing criminal authorities is not multicultural.
And a society that mistakes impunity for tolerance is not enlightened.
It is teaching the most ruthless people within it that the rules no longer apply.
Governments must also stop legitimizing or materially supporting Hamas and other terrorist organizations abroad while claiming to oppose terrorism at home. Hamas’s attacks on civilians, hostage-taking, and use of terror are not resistance that democratic states should excuse or enable. States that provide political, financial, or institutional support to Hamas risk strengthening the same extremist networks and narratives that can inspire violence domestically. If governments do not want terrorism at home, they should not support, fund, excuse, or normalize terrorist organizations abroad.
The answer is not different policing for different ethnicities.
It is one law, one standard, and a state strong enough to enforce both.
Because when the state abandons its responsibility to maintain order, society does not become more tolerant.
It becomes more tribal, fractured and unsafe.
@JeremyDBorein published a fascinating video today about the difference between Western “dignity culture” and the honor-and-shame cultures that governed most human societies for most of history.
Jeremy contrasts two ways of determining truth.
One is the Western courtroom: evidence, cross-examination, due process, and the presumption of innocence. The other is the online tribunal: gossip, insinuation, tribal loyalty, and verdicts delivered through likes and shares.
His broader argument is that Hasan Piker and Candace Owens, despite sitting on opposite sides of politics, promote different versions of the same pre-Western logic.
Hasan divides people into oppressors and oppressed, then judges conduct according to the status of the group performing it. Candace replaces institutional truth-finding with intuition, suspicion, and personal authority. One says, “Believe the oppressed”. The other says, “Believe me because everyone else is lying”.
Both replace the question “Is it true?” with “Whose side are you on?”
The argument is Jeremy’s synthesis, but its foundations include Ruth Benedict’s distinction between guilt and shame cultures; Angela Leung and Dov Cohen’s research on dignity, honor, and face cultures; Joseph Henrich’s work on the weakening of clan structures; and Douglass North’s study of the institutions that make cooperation among strangers possible.
But there is another way to understand the entire argument:
Truth, merit, and impartial justice are what make a high-trust society possible.
Truth means that a claim is judged by whether it corresponds to reality - not by the identity, popularity, suffering, power, or status of the person making it.
Merit means that people are judged by what they actually do: the quality of their work, the strength of their argument, the evidence they produce, and the promises they keep.
Justice means that known rules are applied impartially. The same evidence must meet the same burden. The same conduct must receive the same judgment. Justice is traditionally depicted as blind because the identity of the accused, the victim, the judge, or the crowd is not supposed to determine the verdict.
Equality, properly understood, means equal human dignity and equal standing before those rules. It does not mean pretending that every argument is equally sound, every action equally admirable, or every outcome necessarily equal.
These principles depend upon one another.
Without truth, justice becomes favoritism.
Without equal standards, merit becomes nepotism.
Without merit, equality becomes the allocation of rewards according to political identity.
Without justice, truth becomes whatever the powerful - or the mob - can impose.
Together, these principles make it possible to trust strangers.
You can buy something from a person you have never met because you expect the measurement to be honest, the contract to be enforceable, and fraud to be punished. You can lose a court case and still accept the judgment because you believe the rules were applied impartially. You can turn in your own brother for committing a serious crime because you trust that the evidence will be examined honestly, that he will receive due process, and that the punishment will fit the offense.
That final example is central to Jeremy’s video.
Turning in your own brother is not simply proof that you value abstract justice more than family. It also reveals enormous trust in the justice system. You surrender someone you love to the state only when you believe the state will establish the truth, protect his rights, and treat him fairly.
If you believe the police will torture him, the prosecutor will fabricate evidence, the judge has already chosen a side, or his identity will determine his sentence, protecting him becomes rational. The clan becomes his police force, court, welfare system, and shield.
Tribalism is not always merely a primitive instinct. It is often a survival strategy in a low-trust society.
Anthropologists and psychologists distinguish among dignity, honor, and face cultures.
In a dignity culture, human worth is considered inherent. Disputes are supposed to be resolved through evidence, neutral rules, contracts, courts, and impersonal procedures.
In an honor culture, status depends heavily upon reputation. An insult cannot necessarily be ignored because appearing weak may invite further aggression. Protection comes from demonstrating that harming you or your family will carry a cost.
In a face culture, social standing depends upon fulfilling one’s place within a hierarchy and avoiding public humiliation or disruption.
These are not rigid categories, and every society contains elements of all three. Honor can also contain genuine virtues: courage, loyalty, duty, and the willingness to defend others. The danger begins when honor replaces truth, reputation replaces evidence, and loyalty to the tribe replaces impartial justice.
Joseph Henrich and his colleagues examined how the medieval Western Church’s restrictions on cousin marriage and other kinship practices weakened intensive clan structures. Their 2019 Science paper, “The Church, Intensive Kinship, and Global Psychological Variatio”, connected longer exposure to the Western Church with greater individualism and greater willingness to trust and cooperate with strangers.
Douglass North approached the problem economically. Large, prosperous markets require dependable property rights, enforceable contracts, predictable procedures, and institutions capable of reducing the risk of dealing with strangers.
These systems took centuries to develop because trust accumulates slowly.
But it can be destroyed remarkably quickly.
A sustained demoralization or disinformation campaign does not have to convince everyone of one particular lie. It succeeds by making people believe that nothing can be known, nobody is honest, every institution is captured, and every official explanation is merely propaganda.
The purpose is not always to make you trust the propagandist. It is to make you distrust everyone else.
The media can accelerate this collapse when it suppresses inconvenient facts, applies radically different standards to politically favored groups, presents activism as reporting, or quietly abandons stories that undermine its preferred narrative. Even accurate reporting then loses its force because the institution has spent its credibility.
Two-tier policing does the same damage more concretely. When ordinary people are punished for minor violations while repeat offenders are allowed to roam the streets; when one political demonstration is prosecuted and another is excused; when vandalism, intimidation, or violence is renamed according to the identity of the perpetrator - the lesson is not merely that crime pays.
The deeper lesson is that the rules are not real.
Leaders who appear to treat public institutions as vehicles for ideological transformation deepen that suspicion. This is why concerns about Zohran Mamdani cannot be dismissed simply by repeating that he won an election. When we see a politician who used the language and coalition of progressivism while advancing a much more radical ideological agenda, particularly on policing, socialism, Israel, and political Islam. Whether every allegation made against him is justified is beside the central point: trust cannot be commanded by labeling scrutiny “Islamophobia”. It must be earned through transparency, restraint, competence, and equal treatment under the law.
When citizens no longer believe that institutions will protect them fairly, they stop cooperating with those institutions.
They do not report crimes because they expect nothing to happen - or fear that they themselves will become the target.
They do not testify because they doubt the state can protect them.
They do not accept court decisions because they assume the judge is political.
They do not believe the media because previous distortions taught them not to.
They do not turn in their brother because they no longer trust what the system will do to him.
Instead, they turn inward: toward family, ethnicity, religion, political faction, neighborhood, or online tribe. The closest and most loyal people become the only people they believe they can trust.
Syria offered a brutal demonstration of this danger. Many Alawites relied on the Assad state for protection instead of building independent communal defenses. When the regime collapsed, ordinary Alawite civilians - unarmed and collectively blamed for Assad’s crimes - were massacred in far greater numbers than communities that had organized to defend themselves.
That is how low-trust societies work: tribal cohesion and organization become crucial to survival. If Britain’s institutions collapsed tomorrow, organized tribes will be better off than well integrated individuals. Cohesive communities could be better protected than an atomized majority trained to depend entirely on the state. The people who trusted the system most might be the least prepared when it failed.
That begins a destructive feedback loop:
Disinformation and institutional hypocrisy destroy trust.
Low trust causes people to withdraw cooperation from institutions.
Weakening institutions become less capable of maintaining order.
Crime, corruption, vigilantism, and private retaliation increase.
That disorder further proves that institutions cannot be trusted.
People retreat even more deeply into their tribes.
And eventually the honor culture that the impartial system was built to transcend returns - not because everyone consciously chose it, but because the alternative stopped functioning.
This also exposes a contradiction within contemporary identity politics.
The people who speak most loudly about equality increasingly promote a profoundly status-based moral system. They divide society into ranked identity groups and tell us that the speaker’s identity helps determine the authority of the claim. “Lived experience” can outrank evidence. Guilt and innocence become collective and hereditary. Conduct is judged differently according to who acts against whom.
That is not equality or just. It is rather a honor-and-status culture accompanied by the language of social justice.
Parts of the populist right, or the woke right are embracing the same regression from the opposite direction. They increasingly argue that institutions, evidence, and universal principles are merely weapons used by enemies. Their answer is therefore not to restore impartial standards but to reward friends, punish enemies, and defend their own side regardless of the facts.
Both reject the harder principle: justice means discovering the truth and applying the same standard even when it harms our own side.
The solution is not another campaign demanding that citizens “trust the experts”. Trust cannot be restored through slogans, censorship, institutional self-praise, or moral intimidation.
It must be earned.
Restore deterrence. Arrest repeat offenders. Prosecute violence consistently. Make punishment predictable rather than political. Protect witnesses. Enforce contracts. Publish evidence. Correct false reporting openly. Remove officials who abuse their authority. Apply the same laws to the powerful and powerless, allies and opponents, natives and newcomers.
Deterrence is not opposed to compassion. It is what makes peaceful cooperation possible. When people know that fraud, theft, violence, intimidation, and corruption will carry reliable consequences, they no longer need a clan to protect them. They can trust the law.
A high-trust society is one in which a stranger can be believed, a contract can replace a family connection, evidence can defeat status, and a man can turn in his own brother while still trusting that his brother will receive justice.
That achievement took centuries to build.
It can be lost in a generation.
And once people conclude that truth no longer matters, justice is selective, and institutions belong to hostile tribes, society does not remain individualistic and equal. It reverts to the oldest political arrangement in human history:
Protect your own, distrust everyone else, and settle the matter yourself.
There is an ancient philosophical paradox called the Ship of Theseus.
Imagine a ship whose wooden planks are gradually replaced. One plank today, another tomorrow. Eventually, every original piece has been replaced.
Is it still the same ship?
Now consider Europe.
What happens when a civilization gradually replaces not its wooden planks, but the people, traditions, values, and institutions that gave it its identity?
At what point does a country stop being recognizably itself?
Europe is undergoing one of the most consequential demographic and cultural transformations in its modern history. Yet its political leadership seems remarkably reluctant to discuss what that transformation means.
In England and Wales, the proportion identifying as White British fell from 87.5% in 2001 to 74.4% in 2021. The broader White population declined from approximately 91.3% to 81.7%.
London has already crossed a remarkable threshold: in 2021, only 36.8% of its residents identified as White British, compared with 59.8% in 2001.
These figures describe ethnicity, not values or national loyalty. But they illustrate the scale of change occurring within a single generation. In the 5 years since, this trend accelerated further.
Diversity can enrich a society. Vetted immigration can strengthen economies, introduce new ideas, and revitalize communities.
But diversity is not an identity in itself.
A country must have something distinctive to which newcomers are welcomed. Otherwise, what exactly are they integrating into?
The British, French, German, and Swedish identities are not interchangeable. Their histories, institutions, customs, and political traditions developed over centuries.
Yet much of Europe’s political class appears increasingly uncomfortable defending the very characteristics that make its nations unique.
And this creates a paradox.
Europe celebrates diversity between individuals while becoming reluctant to defend diversity between civilizations.
It encourages people to preserve their ancestral identities while treating the preservation of European national identities as something vaguely embarrassing.
The result is a civilization increasingly uncertain about what it wants to preserve.
There is another familiar metaphor: the boiling frog.
Gradual change is easier to normalize than sudden change.
A demographic shift of one percentage point rarely produces a political crisis. Neither does another school changing its policies, another neighborhood becoming culturally segregated, or another institution compromising its principles.
Each development can be explained away individually.
But cumulative changes can produce consequences far greater than their individual parts.
And demographic change is not necessarily linear in its political effects.
Once communities become geographically concentrated, their electoral influence, institutions, and political representation can grow faster than their share of the national population.
The danger emerges when organized movements use that influence to undermine the liberal institutions that make democratic participation possible.
This brings us to political Islam.
The Muslim Brotherhood is not simply a religious association. It is a transnational Islamist movement with a long history of seeking to organize society and politics around its interpretation of Islam and its ideological tradition includes the ambition to make Islamic principles foundational to political governance.
Refusing to distinguish ordinary religious communities from organized Islamist political movements makes it harder, not easier, to confront the latter.
When Muslims approach approximately 16% of a population, struggles over national identity and political authority become substantially harder to reverse.
Consider the demographic estimates.
Recent surveys and demographic estimates put Muslim populations at up to 10% in France, 8.5% in Germany, 8.1% in Sweden, 6.5% in England and Wales, and 6% in the Netherlands. These figures come from different years and methodologies, with France's 10% estimate covering only adults aged 18–59.
The development is unmistakable.
Europe’s religious and demographic composition is changing.
And in some places, that transformation has coincided with serious challenges to integration, public safety, and social cohesion.
Sweden provides a particularly troubling example.
Over the past two decades, the country has experienced severe gang violence, shootings, explosions, and episodes of urban unrest.
Its authorities have also confronted Islamist extremism, foreign interference, and tensions surrounding Quran burnings.
Yet policymakers ignore failures of integration, criminal recruitment, segregation, or the exploitation of vulnerable communities by extremist networks.
France has experienced devastating jihadist attacks, including Charlie Hebdo, the November 2015 Paris massacres, and Nice in 2016.
Germany suffered the Berlin Christmas market attack in 2016 and has repeatedly disrupted suspected Islamist plots.
Britain endured the Manchester Arena bombing and London Bridge attacks, while continuing to confront Islamist radicalization and controversies involving threats against people accused of blasphemy.
These attacks raise an uncomfortable question: why have European governments repeatedly struggled to identify, exclude, or stop individuals committed to ideologies fundamentally hostile to their constitutional order?
The Gulf states offer an instructive contrast.
The United Arab Emirates has designated the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization and adopted an aggressive approach toward political Islam.
Its government understands a distinction that European policymakers sometimes obscure: religious freedom does not require tolerating movements seeking to dismantle the political system that protects that freedom.
European democracies should be capable of confronting such movements without abandoning civil liberties.
Meanwhile, antisemitism has become an increasingly visible warning sign.
Jewish communities across Europe have faced escalating harassment, threats, vandalism, and attacks, particularly following October 7.
The recurring phenomenon is especially disturbing: the willingness of supposedly progressive institutions to excuse intimidation when it arrives disguised as political activism.
Jewish students are threatened. Synagogues require extraordinary security. Public demonstrations sometimes feature explicit support for terrorist organizations.
And too often the response is to debate whether confronting the perpetrators might itself be intolerant.
A civilization that cannot consistently protect its Jewish minority has a serious problem defending its own liberal principles.
History offers warnings.
Lebanon was once a Christian country. Now it’s sectarian political structure became increasingly unstable amid demographic changes, institutional paralysis, foreign intervention, and armed factionalism.
Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how an organized Islamist movement could exploit a political crisis and ultimately suppress former allies, including secular leftists.
Pakistan illustrates how religious identity can become embedded in constitutional arrangements and restrictive blasphemy legislation.
These societies followed different historical paths, but they all demonstrate that institutions, political organization, and national identity matter enormously.
And once illiberal movements capture institutions, reversing that process can be extraordinarily difficult.
Immigration policy cannot be reduced to labor shortages, GDP projections, and humanitarian slogans.
A sovereign country has both the right and responsibility to decide whom it admits, how many people it can successfully integrate, and what constitutional principles newcomers are expected to respect.
That requires credible security screening, enforceable immigration limits, effective integration policies, and the willingness to exclude individuals involved in extremism.
It also requires protecting freedom of religion, equality before the law, women’s rights, freedom of expression, and the right to leave or criticize a religion.
Those principles are not negotiable.
Nor should they be negotiable simply because defending them makes politicians uncomfortable.
Europe increasingly seems unable to articulate what makes its civilization worth preserving.
It knows how to apologize for its history.
It knows how to celebrate other cultures.
It knows how to condemn nationalism.
But does it still know how to defend its own cultural inheritance without confusing patriotism with ethnic supremacy?
A nation is not merely a collection of people living inside administrative borders.
It is also a shared historical memory, a political tradition, a language, a set of institutions, and an understanding of mutual obligations.
Those things can be passed on to newcomers. They are not determined by ancestry.
But they cannot survive indefinitely if nobody believes they deserve preservation.
That is the real Ship of Theseus paradox confronting Europe.
Whether the values, institutions, and cultural traditions that define a nation are being maintained, renewed, or quietly discarded.
Whether Europe’s leaders will recognize the difference before the transformation becomes irreversible.
Whether Europe still believes in the civilization it is asking newcomers to join.
And if Europe itself no longer knows what makes it unique, why should anyone else be expected to preserve it?
Europe keeps looking back at the ruins of World War II and asking what went wrong.
Too often, the answer it gives itself is: nationalism.
But that may be the wrong diagnosis.
Nazi Germany was not the expression of a confident nation proudly building its culture and offering something great to the world. It was the psychology of a defeated, humiliated society trying to crawl back into a mythologized past. It was not forward-looking patriotism. It was resentment disguised as pride. It was the insecurity of a bully, not the strength of a civilization.
And that matters, because civilizations do not collapse because they love themselves too much. They collapse when they stop believing they can build anything new.
That is when scapegoating begins. That is when Jews are blamed. That is when yesterday becomes sacred, tomorrow becomes frightening, and politics becomes an exercise in revenge.
You see the same sickness in Western communists trying to revive a corpse that already left mountains of bodies behind it. They are not imagining the future. They are trying to re-enter a failed past, pretending history never happened.
And this is where the new authoritarian instinct in the West increasingly comes from the left. Not always with uniforms or flags, but with moral absolutism, compelled speech, institutional cowardice and the permanent hunt for contamination. Different costumes, same impulse: purification, conformity, dehumanization, punishment.
It also explains why Israel becomes the perfect screen for projection. They take everything they fear about nationalism - conquest, supremacy, militarism, ethnic obsession, mythic grievance - and project it onto the Jewish state.
But Israel is not trying to conquer the world. It is not trying to export a racial ideology. It is not asking Europe or the Middle East to become Jewish. It is not demanding that other civilizations erase themselves. It is a small, besieged, argumentative democracy trying to survive in a region that has repeatedly tried to destroy it, and blame it for being the aggressor for surviving.
That is not fascism - that is a people refusing to die.
You see the same phenomenon in Islamist movements too. The question begins as: “How did the Islamic Ottoman glory fall?” But the answers diverge. Atatürk moved forward, broke the spell, and built modern Turkey (before Erdogan). The UAE is doing something similar today: taking a proud culture and aiming it at the future. But when Islamists tried to return to “original Islam”, they did not produce greatness. They produced Hamas, ISIS, Hezbollah, the Taliban - movements that keep societies poor, paranoid, violent and trapped.
So perhaps the obsession with Zionism is not really about Zionism at all.
Perhaps Zionism enrages so many people because it is the thing they failed to become: an ancient people that did not retreat into nostalgia, but turned memory into construction. Language into infrastructure. Trauma into children. History into a state. Grief into software, farms, universities, music, medicine, soldiers, jokes, arguments, families and life.
Israel is not perfect. No living nation is. But it is alive in a way many exhausted societies no longer are. It remains one of the happiest countries in the world, ranking eighth in the 2026 World Happiness Report despite actively fighting a war on 7 fronts for over 2 years now, and Israel’s fertility rate remains the highest in the OECD and the only western country with above replacement level. 
That is what real national confidence looks like. Not hatred of others. Not imperial nostalgia. Not racial fantasy. Not revolutionary cosplay. But a people saying: we have something distinct, something beautiful, something ours - and we intend to build with it, and share it with others.
And that is not uniquely Jewish.
Spain can do it with its warmth, family life, architecture, music, faith, food and stubborn joy. Britain can do it with its language, liberties and dark humour. France can do it with cuisine, beauty and civilizational elegance. Greece, India, Japan, Poland, Armenia, the Gulf states - every civilization has a choice.
You can turn your inheritance into a museum of grievance.
Or you can turn it into a launchpad.
The great lie of post-war Europe was that love of one’s nation leads inevitably to fascism. The truth is almost the opposite: healthy nations do not need fascism. Confident cultures do not need scapegoats. Forward-looking people do not need to burn the world to feel alive.
The danger is not national pride, the danger is the lack of it.
How much of the “Free Palestine” movement is genuinely grassroots, and how much has been manufactured, financed, and amplified by foreign powers?
For three years, Western streets and universities have been consumed by demonstrations, boycotts, occupations, and relentless anti-Israel propaganda. We are told this is simply an organic expression of public outrage.
But follow the money, examine the organizations, and look at the intelligence reports. A very different picture emerges.
Iran, China, Russia, and Qatar have all invested in influencing the Western information environment surrounding Israel. Their methods differ, but their strategic interests overlap: weakening Western alliances, undermining American influence, and exploiting divisions within democratic societies.
Start with Iran.
In July 2024, U.S. Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines publicly confirmed that Iranian government-linked actors were impersonating activists online, encouraging Americans to participate in Gaza demonstrations, and even providing financial support to protesters.
Not speculation. An official American intelligence assessment.
And now we have something even more revealing.
In October 2026, OpenAI exposed an Iran-origin influence operation that used artificial intelligence to manufacture apparently independent Western journalism.
The operators created seven fictitious journalists with Western identities, complete with biographies, social-media profiles, and fabricated professional credentials.
They used AI to refine articles, tailor submissions to legitimate publications, and generate persuasive pitches to editors.
The operation succeeded in placing nearly 100 articles in online media outlets around the world.
These weren’t merely fake accounts shouting slogans into the void. They were fabricated journalists successfully infiltrating real publications.
The operators also generated batches of social-media comments designed to portray America as the aggressor, Israel as an unreliable ally, and Iran as the victim.
They manufactured supportive responses to their own articles to create the appearance of public approval. Their internal reports even used misleading engagement calculations that exaggerated the campaign’s effectiveness.
OpenAI assessed the journalism operation as having achieved significant distribution, although its social-media comments attracted little genuine engagement. The company identified an Iran-origin operation consistent with a commercial influence campaign.
The strategy is unmistakable: fabricate credibility, launder propaganda through legitimate institutions, and manufacture the appearance of independent public opinion.
And this was not an isolated incident. OpenAI had already disrupted Iran’s STORM-2035 operation in 2024, which used fake progressive and conservative outlets and fictitious social-media personas to distribute politically divisive content about Gaza, Israel, and American elections.
The regime that finances Hamas has also been caught exploiting American protests, financing some demonstrators, and using fabricated Western identities to manipulate the information Americans consume.
Then there is China.
Investigations by George Washington University’s Program on Extremism and the Network Contagion Research Institute traced connections between a funding network associated with Shanghai-based businessman Neville Roy Singham and organizations including The People’s Forum, ANSWER Coalition, and the Shut It Down for Palestine campaign.
These organizations coordinated demonstrations, distributed messaging, mobilized activists, and organized disruptive actions across American cities.
The financial and organizational connections are documented. The extent of direct Chinese Communist Party operational control remains unclear, but the network’s relationships with pro-Beijing influence activities have attracted congressional scrutiny.
An October 2026 investigation exposed another layer: an international protest campaign involving more than 179 organizations, distributing prepared slogans, multilingual propaganda materials, and coordinated instructions for demonstrations, walkouts, and political pressure campaigns.
Organized activism is not inherently foreign interference. But when sophisticated protest infrastructure intersects with foreign-linked financial networks, examining the source of the money becomes essential.
Russia operates differently.
The U.S. Department of Justice exposed a Russian government-backed operation involving nearly 1,000 fictitious social-media accounts and AI-assisted propaganda infrastructure linked to RT personnel and Russian intelligence.
Meanwhile, research by the German Marshall Fund found that Russian state-affiliated media devoted extraordinary attention to the Israel–Hamas war after October 7, at times exceeding their coverage of Russia’s own invasion of Ukraine.
Think about that.
Russia was fighting its largest European war in generations, yet its propaganda apparatus devoted enormous resources to a conflict thousands of miles away.
The geopolitical logic is straightforward: a West consumed by internal conflict and arguments over Israel has less attention available for Russia’s actions in Europe.
And just this week, Ukrainian strikes damaged Russian Yandex data-center infrastructure, and suddenly Russian-operated pro-Palestinian accounts had suddenly gone silent.
Russia’s documented information warfare operations are substantial.
And then there is Qatar.
Qatar has poured billions into financial relationships with American universities. U.S. Department of Education disclosures show more than $1 billion in Qatari gifts and contracts reported in 2025 alone, with cumulative reported transactions approaching $9 billion.
The scale of institutional financial dependence raises legitimate questions about transparency and foreign influence.
Qatar also finances Al Jazeera, one of the world’s most influential Arabic-language media organizations, while maintaining longstanding political relationships with Hamas and serving as an intermediary in negotiations.
This gives Doha something different from a bot farm: a combination of media reach, institutional relationships, and diplomatic leverage.
Now consider how these mechanisms can reinforce one another.
A foreign state promotes a narrative. Covert accounts manufacture apparent consensus. State-funded media gives it international exposure. Activist organizations convert the message into demonstrations, campus occupations, and coordinated political campaigns. Politicians then respond to what appears to be overwhelming public pressure.
Eventually, the original source becomes almost irrelevant.
Real people repeat the message. Journalists report on the demonstrations. Universities respond to the activists. Governments react to the apparent public consensus.
The protesters themselves need not know who financed the organizations, who manufactured the online personas, or which foreign intelligence service is amplifying their slogans.
That is precisely what makes influence operations effective.
And here is the larger point.
This is not fundamentally about Israel. It is about the West.
Israel is the issue around which these particular operations converge. But Protests feature communist messaging, trans activism and other grievances. But the Iranian influence campaigns exposed by OpenAI also targeted American elections, domestic political divisions, and the legitimacy of American institutions.
Russia’s information operations have similarly targeted Western political cohesion across multiple issues. Chinese-linked influence networks operate within broader ideological and geopolitical struggles. Qatar’s international media and educational investments extend far beyond the Palestinian question.
The common strategic opportunity is not simply to persuade Western audiences to criticize Israel.
It is to exploit existing grievances, deepen distrust, intensify polarization, and weaken confidence in Western institutions.
This is the logic of political demoralization: convince a society that its institutions are illegitimate, its history is irredeemable, its allies are enemies, and its political opponents are morally beyond redemption.
Israel can serve as a powerful catalyst because the conflict already generates intense emotions. Foreign influence operations do not need to invent those emotions. They can exploit them.
The result can be a society increasingly consumed by internal accusations, institutional distrust, and ideological conflict.
The documented operations reveal something important: foreign powers are not merely observing Western political divisions. Some are actively investing in amplifying them.
Israel is not the ultimate target of these operations. Western social cohesion, institutional legitimacy, and political stability are also at stake.
The “Free Palestine” campaign is the biggest arena in which that struggle is taking place, and it’s the most successful one to date.
It is the one that convinces people to turn against their own society, believing the conclusion was entirely their own.
Still think this is about Israel?
The “Free Palestine” movement isn’t a moral crusade. It’s a demoralization campaign - and it’s working brilliantly.
What started as « woke » on the fringes of radical politics has crept into the mainstream, powered by Qatari money, Soviet-era tactics, and a sea of credulous activists who can chant slogans but couldn’t pass a basic history quiz if their lives depended on it.
Let’s be honest: the movement thrives not on facts, but on ignorance dressed up as virtue. The useful idiots - well-meaning but uninformed - have become the perfect foot soldiers. Trans activists, climate campaigners, BLM organizers, students with $80k gender studies degrees… all proudly waving flags for a cause they don’t remotely understand. They chant “from the river to the sea” with the zeal of revolutionaries, unaware they’re echoing the slogans of Islamist theocrats who would strip them of every right they claim to defend.
It’s almost comedic: they shout about “decolonization” while backing a movement funded by an Islamist colonial power, parroting lies that collapse under the weight of a single decent history book. The Arab migration to the area took place largely under Ottoman and British colonial rule - not some mythical ancient indigeneity. Meanwhile, Palestinians themselves say one thing to Western audiences (“liberation, human rights”) and something very different to their own (“jihad, annihilation”). The fact that Western activists can’t be bothered to check primary sources - or even notice Hamas’s own charter - is proof of how slogans have replaced thinking.
This isn’t a coincidence. The PLO was born as a KGB destabilization tool, designed to weaken pro-Western Arab states like Jordan and Lebanon and turn anti-Zionism into a revolutionary export. Soviet archives and defectors like Vasili Mitrokhin exposed how Palestinian factions were trained, armed, and politically shaped by Moscow. That same playbook - destabilize, divide, demoralize - is now being executed in the West, with hashtags instead of Kalashnikovs.
And the results are unmistakable:
Wherever this movement takes root, you see riots, violence, flag burnings, antisemitism, and attacks on free speech - not “dialogue” or “justice.” It’s a terror-supporting revolutionary movement, not a civil rights campaign. And every time a government rewards it - by recognizing a Palestinian state or indulging the lies - it feeds a beast designed to erode Judeo-Christian values, fracture democratic societies, and undermine the West from within.
The saddest part? Many of these activists truly believe they’re “doing good.” In reality, they’re being used - not to build a better world, but to advance the goals of regimes and movements that laugh at their naivety. They’re not liberators; they’re pawns. Just like the same leftists were when the Islamist ayatollahs regime took over Iran, and executed the same activists supporting it.
This is why governments must stop treating this as a benign moral cause and start recognizing it as a strategic threat. Because appeasing a movement built on lies, historical amnesia, and ideological manipulation doesn’t bring peace. It brings rot and eventually demise.
xitter.cf/destinationXIX/status/…
How do you distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from antisemitism?
Start with a remarkably simple test: the truth.
Criticism examines facts, questions evidence, and applies consistent standards.
Prejudice begins with a verdict and searches for anything that might justify it.
If you call yourself an "anti-Zionist", ask yourself a few questions.
When you accuse Israel of genocide, apartheid, or ethnic cleansing, do you understand the legal definitions? Have you examined the evidence, the counterarguments, and the distinction between allegations and judicial findings?
Or have you simply repeated what you've been told, treating accusations as established facts because they confirm what you already believe?
Do you scrutinize information supplied by Hamas, the terror organization responsible for the October 7 massacre? Do you question the independence and methodology of international investigators? Or does an accusation become credible merely because it is directed at Israel?
This distinction matters because Jews have seen this phenomenon before. For nearly two thousand years...
In medieval Europe, Jews were accused of murdering Christian children to use their blood in religious rituals.
The accusations were absurd. Jewish religious law explicitly prohibits consuming blood.
It didn't matter.
In 1144, the death of William of Norwich became the basis for one of medieval Europe's earliest recorded ritual-murder accusations.
In 1475, following the disappearance of a child in Trent, Jews were arrested, tortured into confessions, and executed.
During the Black Death, Jews were accused of poisoning wells and spreading the plague.
The allegations changed. The mechanism remained remarkably consistent.
First came the accusation. Then came public outrage. Then came the punishment. Evidence was optional.
Jews were massacred, dispossessed, expelled, and subjected to centuries of persecution.
The blood libel survived into the twentieth century, appearing in Nazi propaganda and contributing to the 1946 Kielce pogrom in Poland, where 42 Jews were murdered - after the Holocaust.
Now consider the modern accusations.
Israel is accused of genocide, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing. These are serious allegations requiring serious examination, not slogans.
Yet public discourse frequently erases the distinction between accusation, investigation, legal interpretation, and established fact.
The allegations become the premise for boycotts, sanctions, exclusion, and demands to remove Jewish communities from Judea and Samaria.
But disagreement over sovereignty or international law is not a license to advocate the expulsion and ethnic cleansing of Jews from Judea simply because they are Jews.
And the old conspiracy theories have hardly disappeared.
Jews supposedly control governments, banks, and the media. Jews secretly manipulate wars. Jews are responsible for the world's suffering.
Today, some claim Jews engineered mass immigration, opened Europe's borders, or secretly control American foreign policy.
Different vocabulary. Familiar mythology.
The most dangerous feature of a blood libel is not merely that it is false. It is that people become so emotionally invested in believing it that evidence ceases to matter.
You can criticize Israel's government, military decisions, and policies.
You can demand investigations and accountability.
But when you dismiss contrary evidence automatically, recycle ancient conspiracies, hold Jews collectively responsible, or demand rights for everyone except Jews, you have crossed into something else.
And the consequences are not theoretical.
Jewish institutions across Europe require extensive security. Jewish communities report intimidation and harassment. Jews conceal their identity or consider leaving countries their families have called home for generations.
Europe has seen Jewish communities destroyed, expelled, and driven into exile before.
Antisemitism does not always begin with violence. Often, it begins with a society deciding that accusations against Jews require no proof.
The medieval mob believed it was defending innocent children.
The people who accused Jews of poisoning wells believed they were protecting their communities.
Their certainty did not make their accusations true.
It made them dangerous.
The test is whether you care if your accusations are true.
Whether you apply the same standards to Jews as everyone else.
And whether you are prepared to abandon an accusation when the evidence fails to support it.
Because history teaches us what happens when societies stop asking those questions, and it doesn't end with only the Jews.
Criticizing the Israeli government is not antisemitism.
But Nazi salutes, burning synagogues, and attacking Jews is not “criticism of Israel.”
The new “anti-Zionism” is a rebranding of an older pattern.
Jews were hated for their race, for their religion, for being rich, for being poor, for not having a state - and now, for having one.
Anti-Zionism is not criticism of policy. It is the rejection of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. That is not a policy position. It is the denial of a right granted to virtually every other people on earth.
Everyone - except the Jews.
Anti-Zionism presents itself as a moral stance, borrowing the language of human rights, colonialism, and justice - but applying it selectively and often in reverse. In practice, it whitewashes terrorism, empowers repressive regimes, and treats those committed to Israel’s destruction as morally credible, while denying legitimacy to a democratic society, which consists of a quarter non-Jews.
Israel is not merely criticized; it is uniquely criminalized. Actions that would be seen as legitimate self-defense everywhere else are reframed as “aggression”. Wars initiated against it are recast as its own wrongdoing. A regime that openly calls for Israel’s destruction and pursues nuclear capability is treated as the victim when Israel acts to stop it.
This inversion goes deeper. The indigenous people are recast as colonizers. Refugees - both from the Holocaust and from expulsion across the Middle East - are reframed as “oppressors”. A nation formed in the aftermath of mass persecution is depicted not as a refuge, but as a crime.
And this is not new. Variations of this narrative appeared decades ago, including in Cold War propaganda, where “Zionism is racism” was used to delegitimize Jewish self-determination. The goal was not just to criticize a state, but to invert moral categories themselves - turning victims into perpetrators and stripping history of its meaning.
Holocaust inversion is part of this pattern. By accusing Jews of behaving like their persecutors, it does more than attack Israel - it erodes the moral clarity of the Holocaust itself, reducing it from a historical warning into a rhetorical tool.
This pattern is not new.
In earlier eras, antisemitism portrayed Jews as uniquely dangerous - rootless, manipulative, conspiratorial. The fabricated The Protocols of the Elders of Zion cast Jews as a global threat. In the Soviet era, this was repackaged as “anti-Zionism”, casting Jews as imperialists, racists, and enemies of progress. The language evolved. The structure did not.
Today’s discourse follows the same template. Israel is not treated as one state among many, but as a singular evil. Not mistaken - illegitimate. Not flawed- criminal by nature. A democratic state smaller than New Jersey is singled out relentlessly, while regimes that murder millions, persecute minorities, and execute women and minors for dissent face far less sustained outrage.
If this were about policy, it would remain within policy.
But it doesn’t.
This is not theoretical. Wherever anti-Zionism intensifies, hostility toward Jews follows. Synagogues are vandalized. Jewish neighborhoods are targeted. Mezuzot are torn from doorposts. Self-described “anti-Zionist” protesters drift into Nazi salutes and chants like “Gas the Jews.”
None of this has anything to do with borders, military strategy, or budgets.
It is what happens when the line between “Israel” and “the Jews” has been erased.
Not intentions - outcomes.
And the outcomes are consistent: societies and movements that normalize anti-Zionism eventually turn on their Jews.
There is another familiar deflection. Anti-Zionism points to fringe Jewish groups such as Neturei Karta as proof it cannot be antisemitic. But every form of prejudice has always found a small number of people from within the targeted group willing to validate it. That does not disprove the prejudice - it just often helps legitimize it. And even here, the disagreement is theological and temporal, not a denial of Jewish connection to the land.
More fundamentally, anti-Zionism depends on redefining Jews as something less than a people. If Jews are reduced to a religion, then a Jewish state can be framed as illegitimate. But if Jews are understood - as they historically and sociologically are - as a people with shared origin, history, and identity, then denying them self-determination becomes indistinguishable from denying it to any other nation.
When that argument fails, it shifts - claiming modern Jews are not the “original” Jews, but outsiders from Europe. This ignores historical, cultural, and genetic evidence, as well as the reality that a large proportion of Israeli Jews have Middle Eastern and North African origins.
The argument only works by removing from Jews what is granted to everyone else.
When one state is judged by rules applied to no other, when its existence alone is contested, when its actions are uniquely criminalized, and when hostility toward it consistently spills over into hostility toward Jews - this is not a policy critique.
It is a pattern - and patterns matter more than slogans.
Every wave of antisemitism has presented itself as something else - religion, race, ideology, politics. Each time it insisted it was different. Each time it wasn’t.
Anti-Zionism insists it’s different.
It isn’t.
facts about retweeted
All you need is one brave voice.
xitter.cf/destinationXIX/status/…
History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes. And lately, the echoes are deafening.
In the years before WWII, the world saw a chilling mix of antisemitic lies, rising authoritarianism, and a dangerous indifference to truth. Today, we’re watching the same storm clouds gather.
•Blood libels are back. From Gaza to campuses, Jews are once again falsely accused of atrocities - organ theft, genocide, even inventing their own suffering. The same medieval lies, now amplified by hashtags.
•Antisemitism is mainstream again. In the 1930s, it spread through pamphlets and radio. Today, it spreads through influencers and “activist” NGOs and by main stream media. From celebrities to politicians, blaming the Jews has once again become fashionable.
•Appeasement is policy. Just like Chamberlain believed he could tame Hitler with paper and smiles, Western powers today believe they can reason with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. They call for “restraint” - while terror is rewarded and the victims are scolded.
•Local conflicts are boiling. Back then it was Spain, Ethiopia, Manchuria. Now it’s Ukraine, Israel, Armenia, Syria, Sudan - each one a test the world keeps failing.
•The global order is cracking. Alliances are strained, the UN is paralyzed, and strongmen are filling the vacuum. Just like the 1930s, we are living in the shadow of war without yet calling it one.
•And again, the world watches in silence. Back then, Jews fleeing genocide were turned away from port after port. Today, Israeli children held hostage are met with protests against their rescue.
We are not yet in 1939. But we are deep in the moral fog of 1938.
If history has taught us anything, it’s that ignoring evil doesn’t stop it. It feeds it.
Wake up. Or repeat.
Want to hear a very American story?
Jews invented jeans.
But first, something Americans often forget:
There has never been a United States without Jews.
Jews arrived in what would become the United States in 1654 - more than a century before independence.
They fought in the Revolution. They financed it. They built businesses and communities. And when the new republic was still figuring out what religious liberty actually meant, George Washington wrote to the Jewish community of Newport with an extraordinary promise: America would be a country that “gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.”
This is one of the fascinating themes in @bungarsargon "The Jews and the Left": American Jews shouldn't think of themselves simply as late-arriving outsiders who were eventually allowed into someone else’s country.
Jews were there near the beginning. They helped build America and, in turn, America created something historically extraordinary for Jews.
Not merely tolerance.
Citizenship.
The freedom to build, invent, worship, prosper - and become thoroughly American.
And few stories capture that relationship better than the most American piece of clothing on Earth.
Blue jeans.
In 1871, Jacob Davis - a Jewish immigrant born in Riga 0 was working as a tailor in Reno when a customer asked him to make trousers sturdy enough for her laborer husband.
Davis had an idea: reinforce the stress points with copper rivets.
It worked.
But Davis couldn’t afford to patent and commercialize the idea himself, so he wrote to his Jewish fabric supplier in San Francisco.
That supplier was Levi Strauss, a Jewish immigrant from Bavaria who had come to America after growing up in a Europe that placed legal restrictions on Jewish life.
Strauss said yes.
On May 20, 1873, Jacob Davis and Levi Strauss & Co. received U.S. Patent No. 139,121 for rivet-reinforced work pants.
The blue jean, the most recognizably American piece of clothing on Earth, was born.
Cowboys wore them.
Miners wore them.
Workers wore them.
Rebels wore them.
Rock stars wore them.
Jeans became shorthand for America: practical, informal, individualistic, slightly rebellious.
It's almost a perfect metaphor for the Jewish-American story.
Jews didn't merely assimilate into America.
They helped shape what “American” looked like.
And 152 years later, we somehow came full circle.
American Eagle launched its infamous “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans” campaign - a joke playing *jeans* against *genes*. Critics promptly turned it into a national controversy about race, genetics and even eugenics.
And who runs American Eagle?
Jay Schottenstein, its longtime CEO and executive chairman, from a prominent Jewish-American business and philanthropic family.
But underneath the joke is something worth remembering.
For centuries, Jews lived in societies where governments decided where they could live, what professions they could enter and whether they truly belonged.
America offered a radically different proposition:
Build with us.
And Jews did.
From the colonial era to the Revolution, from commerce and industry to science, entertainment, labor, civil rights and technology, Jewish history isn't a footnote to the American story. It's woven into it.
America gave Jews an extraordinary opportunity to become Americans.
And Jews helped make America what it became.
Including, apparently, what America wears.
So yes... we really do have great jeans.
The bagel didn’t begin as a trendy brunch accessory or an Instagram prop. It began as a workaround.
In medieval and early modern Europe, Jews were often barred from guilds, from owning land, from baking and selling bread like everyone else. In many places, Christians were prohibited by church rules from baking on Sundays, while Jews were restricted or harassed if they tried to compete during the week. So Jews did what they have always done under pressure: they adapted.
The bagel’s shape wasn’t an aesthetic choice. Boiling dough before baking made it durable, portable, slow to spoil, and distinct enough to skirt guild regulations. It could be sold informally, carried easily, eaten without utensils. It was food designed for a people who were never sure when they would be allowed to stay, trade, or move freely.
That pattern repeats across Jewish history. Blocked from farming, Jews turned to trade. Blocked from guilds, they turned to craftsmanship outside them. Blocked from universities, they built their own systems of learning. When one door closed, another had to be invented.
Antisemitism always pretends this is proof of something sinister. “Why are Jews everywhere?” “Why are Jews successful?” “Why are Jews different?” But these questions say nothing about Jews - and everything about societies in decline, looking for someone to blame.
The real answer is mundane - and uncomfortable for those asking.
Jewish success is not the result of victimhood or special treatment. It is the product of hard work, a culture of debate, innovation, and agency. Jewish life prizes learning, not as memorization but as argument. The Talmud is a record of disagreements, not dogma. Children are taught to question, to challenge assumptions, to take responsibility for their choices. Truth is something you wrestle with, not something handed down.
When economies falter, when institutions rot, when leaders fail, scapegoats become convenient. Jews are accused of being too weak, then too powerful; too poor, then too rich; too separate, then too influential. The accusation shifts, but the target stays the same.
The bagel is a quiet rebuttal to all of that. It’s not a symbol of dominance. It’s a symbol of survival. Of ingenuity born from exclusion. Of resilience shaped by pressure. Jews didn’t thrive because the world was kind to them. They thrived because the world wasn’t - and they refused to disappear.
Every society that turned on its Jews later learned the same lesson: the problem was never the Jews. It was the society unraveling, desperate for someone to carry its guilt.
The bagel endured. So did the people who made it.
facts about retweeted
The real scandal isn't who Navi Pillay works for. It's who put her in charge.
In May 2021, more than two years before October 7, Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Pakistan and Eritrea were among the 24 countries that voted to establish the UN inquiry into Israel that Navi Pillay would later chair. The commission was given an unusually broad, open-ended mandate, including investigating the root causes of the conflict.
Pillay had already signed a call for sanctions against Israel before being appointed to lead the inquiry.
She later defended a fellow commissioner over his remarks about the “Jewish lobby.”
And now she's been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
Forget conspiracy theories. The documented record is damning enough.
When did impartiality become optional, and prior political activism become a qualification for investigating Israel?
Would this be the beginning of the end of the UN? 🧙♀️
Meet Alena Douhan - a Belarusian international law professor and United Nations Special Rapporteur.
According to reports highlighted by UN Watch, she received $1.3 million in funding connected to China, Russia, and Qatar before repeatedly attacking the U.S., Israel, and the West.
Let that sink in.
I genuinely wonder whether mainstream media outlets will investigate this story seriously.
France is three weeks into “school protests”: more than 6,500 arrests, hundreds of police officers injured, schools burned, and a fire engine torched after its crew was forced to flee. By October 7, the education minister reported 24 schools seriously damaged, disrupting education for 30,000 pupils.
Overcrowded classrooms and teacher shortages do not explain attacking firefighters or burning the schools protesters want improved. Treating educational frustration as an adequate explanation for this destruction requires abandoning judgment and common sense.
France’s crisis reflects moral demoralization: a political culture that turns ancestral guilt into permanent self-indictment, and teaches people to regard violence against an “oppressive” society as redemption.
The "Free Palestine” movement supplies precisely that vocabulary. Fanon’s revolutionary violence meets the Marxist oppressor–oppressed binary and Islamist glorification of armed “resistance”. Fanon called violence a “cleansing force”. Assign the perpetrator the correct political identity, and an atrocity becomes liberation.
Antisemitism is the canary in the coal mine: the warning that equal citizenship and public protection are becoming conditional. France heard that warning long ago. In 2024, Paris synagogue rabbi Moshe Sebbag said, “it seems France has no future for Jews”, and advised young Jews to leave for Israel. A society should regard that as an indictment of its own condition.
Then came the diplomatic signal. France, Britain and Spain recognized Palestine while Hamas still held hostages. Hamas official Ghazi Hamad celebrated recognition initiatives as “one of the fruits of October 7". Whatever Western leaders say they intended, the terrorists learned massacres and violence produce political gains.
Europe’s leaders should have foreseen the danger. Common sense - and the failure of appeasement before World War II - warns that rewarding aggression can embolden its perpetrators. Excusing revolutionary violence abroad risks legitimizing it at home. France’s burning schools and attacks on police make that warning imminent.
facts about retweeted
French rioters are blasting the rap song “MRH” which glorifies a terrorist who executed a 3 year old French Jewish child.
Lyrics: “Like Mohamed Merah, dodging the cameras at the Bataclan, I shot him with my eyes, manhunt, Salah Abdeslam.”
14 years ago Mohammed Merah broke into a Jewish school in the French town of Toulouse and executed a pair of 3 year old and 5 year old French Jewish boys.
He then chased an 8 year old Jewish girl named Myriam Monsonego.
Merah caught her by her hair and raised a gun to execute her. His gun jammed, so he changed weapons. He then shot the little girl in the head while filming the execution with his GoPro.
He later said that he carried out this crime to “uphold the honour of Islam.” He called it an act of revenge because “the Jews kill our brothers and sisters in Palestine.”
According to one of his brothers, Merah was raised in an "atmosphere of racism and hatred" in their Muslim family.
Merah's sister Souad later said, "I am proud of my brother. He fought until the end against the Jews, and all those who massacre Muslims, I detest them."
According to his brother, when Merah's body was brought home, members of the local terrorist community visited the family to praise his actions and they cried tears of joy. Their only regret was that Merah had not killed more Jews.
Merah was buried on 29 March 2012 in the Muslim section of the Cornebarrieu cemetery, near Toulouse. About 50 people attended, including the local imam.
The mayor of Toulouse at the time tried to block Mohammed Merah’s burial, so French President Nicolas Sarkozy stepped in to support the burial.
"He was French. Let him be buried and let's not have any arguments about it," Sarkozy said.
Now he is held up as a hero by French rioters.
France is outraged by the high school protesters using the rap song MRH in their protest.
In the song, they reference the Islamist terrorist Mohammed Merah who murdered 8-year-old Myriam Monsonego back in 2012 for being Jewish.
On March 19th 2012, Mohammed Merah arrived at the Ozar Hatorah Jewish school in Toulouse heavily armed.
He first shot Rabbi Jonathan Sandler and Sandler’s sons, Arieh and Gabriel, who were waiting near the gate.
Myriam, the school director’s daughter, ran into the courtyard.
Witnesses and later trial testimony said she turned back for her pink schoolbag with her favorite ballet slippers.
She stumbled and was caught.
Merah grabbed her by the hair and shot her in the head.
He murdered 7 people in total
facts about retweeted
Oron Beilin, a native of Tel Aviv, was tragically taken from us at the Nova festival on October 7th. His mother mourns deeply, “You went to Otef, you came back wrapped. How can I contain such pain? You were my whole world, an athlete, a basketball player, beloved by all. We are left alone without you.” His grandmother, Esther, adds, “Look how many people love you. You were charming and loving. We will be strong.” A cousin remembers, “You were always thinking of us, even in your final moments. We love you very much.” A friend reflects, “It’s hard to believe we have to eulogize you at 24. Your spirit remains with us, touching everyone.” Oron, you will always be a part of our souls. Take care above, until we meet again.
May his memory be a blessing 📷
More than 25 years ago, Gary Wexler says someone told him exactly what was coming.
And almost nobody listened.
Around the time of Oslo, Wexler - a marketing professional working on a Ford Foundation project in Israel - met Ameer Makhoul, then the director of an Arab NGO in Haifa.
According to Wexler’s account, Makhoul laid out a remarkably specific strategy:
* Build Palestinian activists on American campuses.
* Bring Western students to Palestinian refugee camps.
* Build global pro-Palestinian organizations.
* Create sophisticated PR campaigns capable of generating more international coverage than Israel’s.
* And finance the infrastructure through European, Arab and Muslim governments and wealthy donors.
Wexler says he spent the following decades watching pieces of that strategy appear.
BDS.
“Israeli Apartheid Week”
International activist networks.
Western students traveling to Palestinian territories.
A political vocabulary - “apartheid”, “colonialism”, “resistance”, “liberation” - that increasingly moved from activist organizations into universities and mainstream political discourse.
Then came October 7.
Wexler published his extraordinary account on November 18, 2023, under a deliberately provocative title: “The Inside Story of How Palestinians Took Over the World".
And what happened afterward made his story even more striking.
Within months, a carefully organized encampment at Columbia helped ignite a nationwide campus movement. Similar encampments appeared at universities across America and then abroad - including Oxford and Cambridge. Thousands were arrested in the U.S. during the 2024 campus protests.
And it did not remain on campus.
By 2026, Britain’s Palestine Solidarity Campaign was describing Palestine as a domestic electoral issue, with activism extending into elections, workplaces, trade unions, councils and consumer campaigns.
That is what makes Wexler’s story worth rereading.
He wasn’t describing a spontaneous reaction to October 7.
He was describing what he says he was told decades earlier: build the activists, build the organizations, build the vocabulary, build the international networks - and eventually those activists will graduate into media, politics, institutions and civil society.
Read what he says Makhoul told him 25 years ago.
Then look around.
The campus was never supposed to be the destination.
It was the beginning.
The “Free Palestine” movement isn’t a moral crusade. It’s a demoralization campaign - and it’s working brilliantly.
What started as « woke » on the fringes of radical politics has crept into the mainstream, powered by Qatari money, Soviet-era tactics, and a sea of credulous activists who can chant slogans but couldn’t pass a basic history quiz if their lives depended on it.
Let’s be honest: the movement thrives not on facts, but on ignorance dressed up as virtue. The useful idiots - well-meaning but uninformed - have become the perfect foot soldiers. Trans activists, climate campaigners, BLM organizers, students with $80k gender studies degrees… all proudly waving flags for a cause they don’t remotely understand. They chant “from the river to the sea” with the zeal of revolutionaries, unaware they’re echoing the slogans of Islamist theocrats who would strip them of every right they claim to defend.
It’s almost comedic: they shout about “decolonization” while backing a movement funded by an Islamist colonial power, parroting lies that collapse under the weight of a single decent history book. The Arab migration to the area took place largely under Ottoman and British colonial rule - not some mythical ancient indigeneity. Meanwhile, Palestinians themselves say one thing to Western audiences (“liberation, human rights”) and something very different to their own (“jihad, annihilation”). The fact that Western activists can’t be bothered to check primary sources - or even notice Hamas’s own charter - is proof of how slogans have replaced thinking.
This isn’t a coincidence. The PLO was born as a KGB destabilization tool, designed to weaken pro-Western Arab states like Jordan and Lebanon and turn anti-Zionism into a revolutionary export. Soviet archives and defectors like Vasili Mitrokhin exposed how Palestinian factions were trained, armed, and politically shaped by Moscow. That same playbook - destabilize, divide, demoralize - is now being executed in the West, with hashtags instead of Kalashnikovs.
And the results are unmistakable:
Wherever this movement takes root, you see riots, violence, flag burnings, antisemitism, and attacks on free speech - not “dialogue” or “justice.” It’s a terror-supporting revolutionary movement, not a civil rights campaign. And every time a government rewards it - by recognizing a Palestinian state or indulging the lies - it feeds a beast designed to erode Judeo-Christian values, fracture democratic societies, and undermine the West from within.
The saddest part? Many of these activists truly believe they’re “doing good.” In reality, they’re being used - not to build a better world, but to advance the goals of regimes and movements that laugh at their naivety. They’re not liberators; they’re pawns. Just like the same leftists were when the Islamist ayatollahs regime took over Iran, and executed the same activists supporting it.
This is why governments must stop treating this as a benign moral cause and start recognizing it as a strategic threat. Because appeasing a movement built on lies, historical amnesia, and ideological manipulation doesn’t bring peace. It brings rot and eventually demise.
xitter.cf/destinationXIX/status/…
Something strange happened to the most educated, most connected generation in history.
They gained access to virtually all human knowledge -
And somehow learned less.
Look at the numbers:
In Pew’s 2024 polling, 34% of Americans under 30 said Hamas had valid reasons for fighting Israel. Among 65+, it was less than half.
But then Pew tested whether people actually knew basic facts about the war.
Only 31% of under-30s answered all three questions correctly.
Among 65+, a majority did.
This isn’t just about Israel.
America has been conducting a decades-long educational experiment.
After Obama’s “No Child Left Behind” made reading and math the center of federal accountability, 44% of school districts reported cutting instructional time from non-tested elementary subjects such as social studies.
History and civics became second-tier subjects.
Then came the results.
In 2022, just 13% of eighth graders were proficient in U.S. history.
40% couldn’t even reach Basic.
History scores had been declining since 2014.
It isn’t confined to history.
In 2024, 45% of American high-school seniors were below Basic in math - the worst result recorded for 12th grade on the current NAEP trend.
Apparently, many children were left behind.
And while historical knowledge weakened, the information pipeline was replaced.
Today 43% of Americans under 30 regularly get news from TikTok.
Among Americans 65+?3%.
That matters because TikTok doesn’t hand you a history book.
An algorithm decides what you see.
And foreign governments understand that extraordinarily well.
U.S. intelligence revealed that Iranian government-linked actors posed as activists online, encouraged Gaza protests and even financially supported protesters.
Meanwhile, foreign money poured into the institutions supposed to educate the next generation.
American universities have reported $67.6 billion in foreign gifts and contracts since federal disclosure requirements began.
As of February 2026, the largest country source was not China.
It was Qatar: about $8.8 billion, with only about 400 students attending USA universities in 2025.
We created a generation with less exposure to history and civics, measurable academic decline, and an unprecedented dependence on algorithmic information.
Then we handed foreign governments direct access to the same information ecosystem.
And we are surprised when the generation that knows the least about a conflict becomes the easiest one to manupulate.
31% knew the basic facts.
43% get news from TikTok.
34% said Hamas had valid reasons for fighting.
Perhaps those numbers should be discussed together.
One of the greatest propaganda victories of the last generation was convincing Americans that the primary foreign influence threat in Washington is AIPAC.
Not China.
Not Qatar.
Not the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Jews.
Again.
This is the same inversion we see everywhere else.
Hamas commits a genocidal massacre on October 7 and promises to do it again.
Israel is called genocidal for defending itself.
Iran funds Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and militias across the Middle East.
Israel is called the destabilizing force for fighting them.
Qatar hosts Hamas leaders, funds Islamist movements, and builds influence throughout the West.
AIPAC becomes the story.
Notice the pattern?
The aggressors become victims.
The arsonists become firefighters.
And somehow the Jews end up responsible for everything.
If foreign influence were really the concern, the conversation would begin with Qatar.
Not only because of lobbying, which exists in much higher numbers than that of Israel, that is not even in the top 10.
But in Qatar's case - Lobbying is the least interesting part of the story.
According to U.S. Department of Education disclosures, Qatar has given roughly $6.3–6.6 billion to American universities, making it the largest foreign donor in U.S. higher education. More than China. More than Germany. More than Britain. More than Saudi Arabia. In 2025 alone, disclosed Qatari funding exceeded $1.1 billion.
Yet Qatar is a tiny state with roughly 330,000 citizens.
China sends hundreds of thousands of students to American universities.
India sends hundreds of thousands.
South Korea sends tens of thousands.
Qatar sends only a tiny fraction of that - only 430 students in 2025.
So if the money is not following students, what is it following?
Future journalists.
Future professors.
Future diplomats.
Future policymakers.
Future intelligence analysts.
That is not philanthropy.
That is influence infrastructure.
And unlike Israel, Qatar is not America's democratic ally.
It is the same regime that hosted Hamas leadership for years.
The same regime accused by Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt of supporting Muslim Brotherhood networks and extremist movements.
The same regime that operates Al Jazeera, one of the most influential narrative-shaping institutions in the Arab world.
The same regime that somehow appears in nearly every major regional issue: Gaza, Lebanon, hostage negotiations, Iran, Afghanistan, energy diplomacy, university funding, media networks, and think tanks.
Not because of its size - But because of its influence.
And here is the part nobody wants to discuss.
People claim America is "fighting Israel's wars."
But Israel fights its own wars.
Israeli soldiers fight in Gaza.
Israeli soldiers fight Hezbollah.
Israeli soldiers strike Iranian assets.
Israel absorbs the casualties.
Israel develops the intelligence, missile defense, cyber capabilities, and battlefield technologies that America itself uses.
Qatar is different.
The United States maintains Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the forward headquarters of CENTCOM and one of the largest American military installations in the Middle East. Thousands of American personnel are stationed there.
Why?
Because Qatar sits next to Iran and shares the world's largest natural gas field with it.
When Iran threatens Gulf energy infrastructure, American power helps secure Qatar's position.
In other words, America is directly invested in protecting strategic Qatari interests.
Yet somehow nobody says "Qatar is dragging America into conflicts".
The double standard is remarkable.
The same pattern appears with the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Holy Land Foundation case - the largest terrorism-financing prosecution in American history - ended with convictions for providing material support to Hamas. The case also introduced evidence involving Brotherhood-linked networks and the 1991 "Explanatory Memorandum", which described a long-term strategy for advancing Islamist objectives in North America.
These concerns about Islamist influence did not originate with Israel.
They emerged from American investigations, federal prosecutions, congressional hearings, and the security concerns of multiple Arab governments.
Yet the people who obsess over AIPAC rarely discuss any of this.
Why?
Because AIPAC does not fit the preferred narrative.
America supports Israel for reasons that are visible and concrete:
Intelligence.
Missile defense.
Cybersecurity.
Counterterrorism.
Technology.
A democratic ally that fights its own wars.
You can debate aid (or vote against it in section 224).
You can debate policy.
That is democracy.
But claiming support for Israel can only be explained through Jewish money requires ignoring something obvious:
The people spending billions shaping universities accuse Jews of buying politicians.
The people hosting Hamas accuse Israel of extremism.
The people funding ideological influence accuse others of manipulation.
That's the genius of inversion.
The accusation becomes the camouflage.
"Jewish bankers".
"International Zionism".
"The Israel Lobby".
"AIPAC".
Same skeleton, new costume.
And while everyone is staring at the costume, the real influence networks continue shaping the next generation of Western elites.
The more interesting question is not why America supports Israel.
The more interesting question is:
What is Qatar buying?
There is an extraordinary irony in hearing Islamists use how the Qur’an cursed the Jews to attack them and their Zionism.
Because read what the Qur’an actually says about Moses and the Children of Israel.
Moses tells them:
“O my people! Enter the Holy Land which Allah has assigned to you, and do not turn back” - Qur’an 5:21
And what do they answer?
There are powerful people already living there. We’re not going in while they remain there.
Then two faithful men tell them to enter, trust God and fight.
Still they refuse:
“O Moses! We will never enter it as long as they are there. So go, you and your Lord, and fight. We are sitting right here”. - 5:24
And THAT is when they are punished - because they were not Zionists enough.
For forty years they are condemned to wander.
The irony is almost too perfect.
God had just told them to return.
Their sin was that they were too afraid to fight for it.
They wanted the land only if someone else removed their enemies first.
Even classical Islamic commentary is remarkably explicit about this: Ibn Kathir says Moses ordered the Children of Israel to enter Jerusalem, fight their enemy, and trust God’s promise of victory. They refused - and were punished.
Then, according to the same tradition, another generation finally entered the land under Joshua.
Which leaves a rather fascinating question for Muslims who invoke this passage against Jews:
If you believe the Qur’an when it says God told the Children of Israel to enter the Holy Land He had assigned to them…
…and that their sin was refusing to fight for it…
why exactly are you angry that their descendants finally learned the lesson?
There is a line in the Qur’an that almost no one in the modern Middle East wants to talk about. Not Islamists, not Arab nationalists, and certainly not Western pundits who recently discovered “anti-Zionism”. Yet it is there in plain text.
Qur’an 5:21 - “O my people, enter the Holy Land which Allah has written for you.”
(Surah Al-Ma’idah, spoken by Musa to the Children of Israel)
Not “written for the Arabs”.
Not “written for future empires”.
Written for the children of Israel.
And again:
Qur’an 17:104 - “Dwell in the land…”
For fourteen centuries, classical Islamic commentators understood these verses exactly as they read: the land was given to the Children of Israel. The modern attempt to erase that fact is political, not theological.
Because the real problem is not history.
The real problem is what history proves.
For years, Arab nationalist propaganda - now oddly echoed by people like Tucker Carlson and others in the West - has pushed the claim that today’s Jews are not the ancient Jews, that they are “Europeans”, “Khazars”, or colonial impostors. That theory collapsed under modern genetics, archaeology, and basic scholarship.
DNA studies consistently show that Jewish populations - including Ashkenazi Jews - share clear Middle Eastern ancestry. The “Cohen Modal Haplotype”, found among Jewish priestly families across the diaspora, points to a common origin going back thousands of years. Archaeology, inscriptions, coins, Roman records, Byzantine records, and Islamic sources all confirm continuous Jewish presence in the land. There was never a moment in the last three millennia when Jews disappeared from it.
And the demographic reality of Israel today destroys the “European colonist” myth even further:
most Israeli Jews are not Ashkenazi at all. They came from Iraq, Yemen, Morocco, Iran, Syria, Egypt, and other parts of the Middle East and North Africa - communities older in the region than most modern Arab identities.
The counter-claim - that Palestinians are the ancient Philistines or Canaanites - has even less basis. The Philistines were a long-extinct Aegean people who disappeared more than 2,500 years ago. The Canaanites vanished as a distinct population in antiquity. The Arabic language, culture, and identity in “Palestine” arrived with the Arab conquests in the 7th century, and the population grew later under the Ottoman Empire and especially during the British Mandate, when economic development funded largely by Jewish immigration drew large numbers of Arab workers from surrounding regions.
Even British records show this clearly. The 1864 survey associated with the British consul James Finn describes a sparsely populated land, with Jerusalem numbering only around fifteen thousand inhabitants in total, with Jews forming the largest single community - more than Muslim and Christians combined. Travel accounts from the 18th and 19th centuries repeatedly describe swamps, malaria, abandoned fields, and empty stretches of land long before modern Zionism began draining the marshes and building cities.
The British Mandate itself restricted Jewish immigration at the very moment European Jews were fleeing persecution, while Arab migration into the area continued with far fewer limits. The demographic story is a de-colonialization one. It is return followed by conflict.
Which brings us back to the real issue - the one no one wants to say out loud.
For much of traditional Islamic law, Jews and Christians were dhimmis: protected, but subordinate. Judaism was often described as din batil - a superseded religion. In that framework, Jews could exist, but not rule. They could live, but not be sovereign. A successful, powerful Jewish state in the heart of the Middle East is not just a political problem. It is a theological one.
That is why the conflict persists even when borders change, governments change, and offers are made. Because the existence of a Jewish state contradicts a worldview that assumed Jews would never again stand on their own land as a nation.
Some in the region, like leaders in the UAE and other Gulf states, have begun to move past that. They accept reality. They accept history. And, whether they say it openly or not, they accept what their own scripture says.
Others are still fighting it.
They will keep fighting it.
They will keep losing.
Because the irony at the centre of this conflict is impossible to escape:
The Qur’an says the land was given to the Children of Israel.
In that sense - whether people like it or not - Allah is a Zionist.
